I’ve been doing this all wrong. I have been dutifully showing up roughly every Friday night and delivering this post for months now, and I have asked for nothing in return. Oh, sure, a compliment in the comments, or a link, or maybe even a bit of well-reasoned pushback—those are all good, but I don’t require that in advance to write this post. Hell, I don’t even expect, no less demand, that you read all the way to the end.

Well, I had a bit of a revelation today, and I am telling you, that all ends right here. I am holding out. No more Mr. Easy Post. I have some things I, um, need in advance.

But first, perhaps you wonder, why the change? Well, I am taking my queue from a few patriotic Americans that have pledged their lives to serving their home states and, no doubt, the all the people of America.

First example. . . Blanche Lincoln.

The election of Barack Obama filled many with hope, and many with a whole lot of questions, but one thing that seemed fairly hopeful and certain, was the death of the stupid, offensive, and wholly counterproductive policy of using federal funds to promote abstinence-only sexual education. The programs actually increased rates of teen pregnancy, and a president that lived in the reality-based community seemed to understand that. So, when Bush-era funding expired over the summer, and its renewal was not included in the first Obama budget, it seemed like sanity had scored a little victory over moral imperialism and moralistic opportunism.

Enter health care reform—notably, the Senate merged bill that is searching for 60 votes. Hey, wow, what’s that you say? $50 million—Fifty. Million. Dollars—for abstinence-only programs are in the bill? Whatever for?

What to make of abstinence-only’s restoration? I don’t think it’s off base to read this as a slight concession to the Senate’s social conservatives: backing off the strong abortion language but offering up a significant pool of money for abstinence-only programs. Orrin Hatch, after all, was the man behind both the abstinence-only funding and the push for the Stupak provision—and he won at least one of those battles. Admittedly, a $50 million grant is unlikely to make Hatch an ardent supporter of Reid’s bill. But it might do something for an on-the-fence Democrat like Blanche Lincoln (who, by the way, voted yes on abstinence-only funds in that previous Senate Finance Committee vote).

Oh, Blanche—you know how to roll a log, don’t you?

Example two. . . Ben Nelson.

TPM is reporting that Majority Leader Harry Reid is going to exclude a provision that would remove the anti-trust exemption for health insurers from the Senate health care reform bill. The move is apparently being made to grease the gears for Sen. Ben Nelson, one of three Democratic hold-outs, to vote for procedural motions in the run-up to a final vote. The provision was a huge fear of health insurers, particularly of America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) and Blue Cross Blue Shield. Both of those organizations are represented by former staffers to Sen. Nelson and fellow hold-out Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

Way to go, Ben—that is how it is played!

And, finally, example three. . . Mary Landrieu.

Sen. Mary Landrieu’s state of Louisiana is still ailing years after Hurricane Katrina devastated its largest city. So Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could be killing two birds with one stone by including in his health care bill $100 million in federal Medicaid aid for any states (aka, Louisiana) that have suffered a natural disaster in the last seven years. That’s much needed help for the poor in Louisiana, and also a sweetener for Landrieu, whose support for health care reform has never been terribly certain.

Mary Landrieu—you are a baller!

Now, Senator Nelson has given his word that he will vote for tomorrow’s motion to proceed to debate on the health care bill—it’s first “test”—but Senators Lincoln and Landrieu are still keeping mum (don’t you dare call it dithering!), proving that just because you have had your demands met, doesn’t mean you can’t ask for more.

Just imagine what might have happened if, say, I had realized this brilliant tactic earlier. . . or if a block of liberal Senators had. . . . You might be staring at a blank page with a comment box beneath it (don’t go getting any ideas)—and you might have a truly robust public option paid for with progressive taxes and open to anyone who wanted it just as soon as the ink dried on the president’s signature.

OK, so, here’s what I want. Read, comment, tell your friends. . . yes, I want all that. . . and your everlasting adoration, too. . . blah blah blah. . . but here is what I really want: I want my Democrats (that’s my Democrats—one’s that represent me, and not AHIP) to play hardball like the ConservaDems appear to. Then I want my president’s political team to realize that backing up my wing of the party is the winning proposition, not this regional, factional, piecemeal, chasing the money instead of the votes strategy that they seem to endorse along with Majority Leader Reid. And, then, to prove I am not blowing sunshine, I want all of you, dear readers, to pledge that the next time Jane or any of the FDL Action crew asks you to make a phone call or write a letter, you will do that—because we may not have the kind of money the masters of Lincoln, Nelson, and Landrieu have, but if we take our wit and intellect off the blog and on to the streets, we have something pretty wonderful.

Don’t believe me? Well, why are we even still talking about the public option at all?

And why did I just write 1,000 words without getting your promise in advance?

Let’s make a deal!

Tags: , , , , ,


Related posts:

  1. Campaign Contributions from Insurance Companies to Senators Blocking the Public Option
  2. With Conservative Resistance to Public Option, What Was the Point of the Opt Out?
  3. Mary Landrieu: “At Some Point, Harry Reid Will Have To Indulge Us Spoiled Children”
  4. It Sounds Like Reid Is Planning To Sell Out The Public Option
  5. CBO Scores Senate Bill, Would Reduce Deficit $127 Billion in 10 Years