The Dog Days Of Health Care Reform

Maxine Waters has basically had enough.

WATSON: Is the President and Rahm Emanuel -- former member of the House -- are they treading too lightly here, are they not bringing out the big stick against some of those Blue Dog Democrats and saying "we've got a once in a four-decade opportunity to get this passed, everyone knows how easy it is for momentum to dissipate, you guys have to get on board and we've got to go forward and make sure that everyone has better health care, is covered, and hopefully better quality of outcome?

WATERS: Well that may be difficult for Rahm Emanuel, because don't forget -- he recruited most of them. As when he was over in the Congress, in the leadership, Rahm Emanuel recruited more conservative members and based on some of the information I'm getting, they told them that they could vote the way they wanted to vote, that they would not interfere with what was considered their philosophy about some of these things. So, now the chickens have come home to roost.

I'm sure Emanuel would counter that, without his recruitment, those would be Republican seats right now, and how would that help us. Well, a good number of those Blue Dogs wouldn't be blocking Democratic bills in committee, for one thing.

Waters says she's holding strong on blocking a bill without a public option.

KERY ELEVELD: There are reports out of the Senate Finance Committee today that they may be dropping the public option in their negotiations. Do you think that's going to sell in the House?

WATERS: No. As a matter of fact, that's a kill for sure for the progressives. For the majority, I think, of our members a public option is a compromise -- we wanted single payer as you know, and we backed off because they said that was going to be impossible to do. Again they brought up the more conservative elements, etc. etc., and so we will not support any bill that does not have a public option in it.

We always hear about the tricky politics for the Blue Dogs or Democrats in moderate districts. In this case, the politics are tricky for progressives in safe seats. If they don't hold firm, I have little doubt that THEY will see primary challenges from the left. Whether or not they'll succeed is another matter, but you can see how a primary challenge has turned Arlen Specter into a progressive lefty. Progressives have political interests in getting something good done as well. And as George Miller says, the Baucus bill just doesn't cut it:

Part of the problem, as I suggested earlier, is that the news out of the Senate has widened a rift between House liberals and Blue Dogs. Rep. George MIller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, and an author of House health care legislation, isn't at all pleased with the watered down reform bill the Senate Finance Committee is set to propose.

"I don't think that adds up to health care reform. It doesn't add up to insurance reform. It doesn't add up to keeping costs down. I don't know what the hell that adds up to," Miller said.

Basically, this is a massive game of chicken between moderates and liberals. The moderates figure liberals will back down, based on past experience. The liberals think the moderates will do the same. What the liberals have going for them is the fact, plain fact, that a defeat of health care reform will drag down the party, and the most vulnerable seats, frankly, are occupied by those same moderates. If health care reform passes, certain lawmakers could lose seats in very particular circumstances. But if reform fails, only one group is certain to go down with it - the Blue Dogs.

CA-10: DeSaulnier Solidifies Support While Others Circle

The biggest news out of the CA-10 race today is that, according to Lisa Vorderbrueggen, both Ellen Tauscher and friend of Calitics Rep. George Miller have endorsed Sen. Mark DeSaulnier for the future special election. That's a fairly big deal. There are essentially four power structures in the political scene CA-10, and DeSaulnier has swallowed up three - Tauscher, Miller, and Tom Torlakson. Considering that he's the chair of the Senate Labor Committee, the fourth power structure, the local unions, should be his as well.

Nevertheless, other prospective candidates are making news as well. Joan Buchanan's operatives clearly dropped a poll to Politico, showing her leading DeSaulnier narrowly:

The poll shows Buchanan leading DeSaulnier 21 to 18 percent, with Republican San Ramon mayor Abram Wilson at 14 percent and former GOP Assemblyman Guy Houston at 13 percent.

Neither Republican has yet expressed interest in the race.

Despite DeSaulnier’s experience representing the area in the state legislature, both Democrats have comparable name recognition, according to the poll. Buchanan is recognized by 34 percent of voters, while 31 percent offer an opinion on DeSaulnier.

That was a survey of 400 voters with a high margin of error (4.9%), so I wouldn't take it too seriously. Buchanan would see institutional support dry up fast, but could leverage an outside group like EMILY's List.

The insufferable California Blue Dog is floating that former Mod Squad member Asm. Joe Canciamilla, who previously announced he was considering the race for Attorney General, might jump in, but DeSaulnier hasn't just beaten him in the past, he's beaten his whole family (DeSaulnier beat Canciamilla's wife in a Senate primary in '08).

Meanwhile, there's "one of SF's top political minds," if he does say so himself, Adriel Hampton, who is intent on dropping a press release a day to get reporters to chase coverage. Yesterday he urged passage of S. 582, the Interest Rate Reduction Act, which is actually a solid policy goal to cap interest rates on credit cards and loans, sponsored by Bernie Sanders. Today he went hard negative against DeSaulnier:

California 10th Congressional District candidate Adriel Hampton (D-Dublin) is not mincing words in his criticism of State Sen. Mark DeSaulnier considering leaving the Legislature just months after being elected. If Sen. DeSaulnier were to resign his seat, it would result in a minimum of 112 day period where an additional Republican vote would be need to pass a budget or raise revenue under California's unique 2/3 requirement.

"When DeSaulnier ran for his office, he signed up for a four year hitch, not a few-month fling," Hampton said. "His fickle recklessness would strengthen the Republican bargaining position and could cost Californians billions in cuts to health care, education, and public safety."

Restaurant-owner DeSaulnier was sworn in to the state senate just last December. If he runs for Congress, it would be the third different office he has run for in as many years. If legislative Republicans believe he has a chance of winning, it would incentivize them to stall a budget compromise until after the election, further extending the period of gridlock that would result in Sacramento by his candidacy.

There's a lot about this that is arrogant and ridiculous ("restaurant-owner DeSaulnier" is kind of a lame epithet to put on a guy who's been elected by these same constituents multiple times), but Hampton raises a point I raised as soon as Tauscher announced she was leaving. The merry go-round of special elections will put Democrats in the legislature down a body or two well into next year, and in the case of Buchanan threatens the loss of the seat. Now, this logic maybe appeals to a junkie like me, but my guess is it will have approximately no appeal to those inside the district, who will want to pick the best candidate for the job. In addition, this is a hard negative message that only argues for someone not in the legislature to be elected, and since the field has in no way assembled fully, I don't see that as a political winner. Not to mention the pose that DeSaulnier is a fickle part-time legislator made by someone who apparently is still working a full-time job and thinking he can run for Congress at the same time.

Oh, and Sully Sullenberger won't run, either. In case you were wondering. But there are more candidates who may enter, FYI.

NCLB Go Bye-Bye?

That's what The NY Times has said. This is for the best, there were elements of Rep. George Miller's reauthorization that were noble, but it was the wrong framework for improving education in America, and sought to turn our schools into test-taking factories instead of institutions to prepare young minds for the future. Sen. Kennedy is talking about "postponing" the bill, but something this big is unlikely to be reauthorized in a Presidential election year.