Republican Congressman Mark Kirk is a winner. Since the year 2000, the voters of Illinois' 10th Congressional District have been sending him to Washington DC despite the fact that the 10th is moderately Democratic. Representing some of the wealthiest suburbs north of Chicago, it voted for Gore over Bush 51-47 in 2000, for Kerry over Bush 52-47 in 2004 and for Obama over McCain by a staggering 61-38 in 2008.
The Illinois Republican Party has fallen on hard times. When I moved to Chicago in 1995, the GOP controlled the Governor's and Attorney General's offices as well as both houses of the state legislature and a majority of Illinois' Congressional seats. Today, that's all gone. But Mark Kirk has survived.
Next year, there will be an open seat race for the Senate seat held until this year by Barack Obama. This contest should represent a golden opportunity for the GOP to stage a comeback in the Land of Lincoln. Illinois Democrats have been rocked this year by the impeachment of Governor Rod Blagojevich. Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Illinois' most popular elected official, has announced that she will run for a third term rather than enter the Senate or Gubernatorial contests. Finally, continued weakness in the economy has caused the Obama Administration's popularity to sag a bit in the rust belt.
So the Republican Party should have been jumping for joy this past Wednesday when Mark Kirk signaled to National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn that he would run for Senator. Unfortunately for Kirk, his meeting with his party's top muckety-mucks didn't go too well. In fact, he was forced to immediately turn around and announce that he wouldn't run for Senate after all.
Why? According to the Washington Post, "Kirk's decision...followed a meeting of the Illinois Republican congressional delegation on Thursday in which his colleagues refused to back Kirk in a primary against Illinois Republican Party Chairman Andy McKenna due, in large part, to his vote in favor of President Barack Obama's climate change bill."
In other words, given the opportunity to run a candidate who is popular, successful and a titan of fundraising, Republican overlords have decided that they'd rather back a candidate who is a total unknown and who has no experience in running for office, but who is ideologically pure enough to suit them.
You can read a couple of good commentaries on this story here and here. American statesman Henry Clay used to say, "I'd rather be right than President." His spirit lives on in today's Republican Party.
Update 7/25/09: McKenna has stepped aside, so Kirk is back in the race. Kirk has quite a mountain to climb. He has to convince GOP big-wigs to get over their reluctance to back him. He has to convince rural down-state Republicans that he's not a Republican-in-name-only from Chicago. And he has to win in a blue state against a Democrat who has already won statewide election and who undoubtedly will receive support from President Obama. I wish Kirk no luck.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
A perfect 68
Fourth (and last) in a series of reflections on the 2008 election
There's a lot of reasons why I'm happy about this. I've been a Franken fan for a long time. I'm also glad that we've finally beaten Norm Coleman, who was elected only because of the death of Paul Wellstone, the greatest progressive of his era.
But let me jump back to election night '08 for a minute. At close to four in the morning, I was watching the late returns from Minnesota. When the last votes from Duluth finally came in, it looked like Coleman had won by a few votes. I was stunned, because Franken had been leading all night. I was further stunned because it looked like the Repbulican incumbent Senators in Alaska and Oregon had won reelection, despite widespread predictions that they would lose.
Sure, I didn't have a lot to complain about. Obama had won big. Governor Christine Gregoire had defeated challenger Dino Rossi. (The Seattle Post-Intelligencier had all but declared Gregoire doomed the day before. Of course it turned out that it was the P-I itself that was doomed, but that's another story).
Late returns counted after election night would eventually give victory to the Democratic challengers in Alaska and Oregon and to Al Franken as well after a long recount process.
This means that in the last two elections I have correctly predicted the outcomes of all 68 Senate elections. People ask me, "Joe, how do you do it?" Actually, no one's ever asked me that, but if they did, here's what I'd say:
These days, there are so many polls and so much analysis you can read online that it's fairly easily to predict the outcome of most races. On top of that, I look at which party has momentum. Most of the very close races break the same way in any given election. Lastly, I look for small things that tell me how a campaign is going.
For example, I knew that respected incumbent Republican Elizabeth Dole was going to lose her Senate reelection race to second-tier challenger Democrat Kay Hagan after I read this. If you want to win a close race, you need college-age people who will work 80-plus hours a week. Apparently the Dole campaign was run principally by old folks that she and Bob Dole had known for decades.
Similarly, I'm not yet ready to predict that Louisiana Democratic Congressman Charlie Melancon (Me-LAW-saw) will defeat incumbent Republican Senator David Vitter next year, but I am intrigued by this article. It suggests that in any close congressional race in Louisiana, if one candidate is Cajun and the other is not, the Cajun will win.
In conclusion, we now have 60 Democrats in the Senate, but we haven't really won anything unless our ballot box victories translate into the legislative victories we want. Let's start with public option.
Monday, June 22, 2009
America's other health care crisis: Senate Democrats have no backbone
Our Democratic President wants universal health care insurance for Americans. The American people are expressing clear support for this goal. Democrats in the Senate support health care reform, but they aren't on board with the President's plan. However, they haven't agreed on an alternative plan of their own either; instead they're squabbling over a number of different proposals. Republicans of course are against health care reform. They don't believe America is in a health care crisis. Republicans in Congress are gearing up to oppose any Democratic plan that comes to the floor of the Senate. Of course if the Democrats remain so disorganized that they can't actually bring any of their plans to a vote, the Republicans don't have to do anything.
The eight sentences above explain why the Clinton health care proposal of 1994 failed. Unfortunately, these same eight sentences also describe the current state of President Obama's health care proposal.
"Health care is a right." That was the clear message of the Obama campaign in 2008.
Before we go any further, let's review some facts:
America spends two to three times as much as other leading industrialized nations on health care costs per capita. Despite this, nearly one in five Americans under the age of 65 are without health insurance. We have an infant mortality rate that is higher than Cuba or Slovenia and about twice as high as Japan. The main reason why we spend so much and get so little? It's the fact that 31% of health care costs in this country are not for health care, but instead for administrative overhead costs incurred as a result of our perpetual war between providers of health care and the private insurers that they are trying to get to pay for that care.
To my mind, these facts point to a health care crisis in this country that calls for sweeping reform. Of course the Republican Party didn't agree that reform was needed when the Clinton administration proposed it in 1994, and they don't agree today. But I digress. For once, I'm not writing to beat up on the GOP, I'm writing to beat up on certain Democrats.
Before I talk about the Democratic Senators who are foot-dragging on the President's plan, let's review what the plan is. Obama has proposed a National Health Insurance Exchange that would include both private insurance plans and a Medicare-like government run option. Coverage would be guaranteed regardless of health status, and premiums would not vary based on health status either. For the record, this is a great plan and I support it.
Here's a great summary about how the plan works from Jacob Hacker of the The New Republic: "If you don’t have coverage from your employer, you can choose from a menu of health insurance products that includes not just a range of private health plans but also a public insurance plan provided on the same terms nationwide.
The argument for this new public plan is that it would have lower administrative costs; greater leverage to hold down prices; and the transparency, broad patient data, and incentives for long-term investment in health to improve the quality and efficiency of care. Along with new regulations, it would also be the primary check on a private insurance industry that has, for too long, neglected both quality and efficiency, focusing its creative energies instead on new ways to shift costs onto and screen out the sick."
Allowing everyone to buy into a public insurance program if they so choose is known as public option. And how do Americans feel about public option? Overwhelmingly, they support it. So you would think that Congress would be ready to get behind the President's plan. Democrats in the House have done just that, drafting a bill includes a robust public plan that would operate nationally and compete with private insurers.
Meanwhile in the Senate, spineless Democrats are calling public option dead on arrival. Kent Conrad, for example, is proposing a plan that would allow consumers, states, and anybody else so inclined to create cooperatives that would purchase health care for their members. Why does his plan not include public option? Because, according to Conrad, public option doesn't have the votes, with all Senate Republicans and at least three Democrats opposed to it.
Senator Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and a Democratic moderate, has also stated his support for killing public option. Just today, Senator Feinstein of California, who is hardly a conservative, downplayed the possibility of the Obama plan becoming law because she doesn't know that the President, "has the votes right now."
So nearly half the Senate, including some Democrats are totally opposed to public option, even thought it enjoys the support of the President and the public? How can this be? Well, for an explanation, let's return to the Jacob Hacker article I cited earlier:
"The idea of public plan choice was part of all the leading Democratic candidates’ health plans, Senator Max Baucus’ November 2008 White Paper, and the vision of reform articulated earlier this year by key congressional Democrats. All with little attention outside health policy circles--until conservatives, health insurers, and some provider groups decided the public plan was public enemy number one. And so, the misinformation campaign began: A public plan available alongside private plans only for Americans without workplace insurance was suddenly described as a "government takeover” of medicine, the "road to rationing," and (that old standby) "socialized medicine." Republicans drew their lines in the sand, and Democrats started their favorite parlor game: compromising among themselves even before the real debate begins."
The spinelessness that Conrad, Baucus, Feinstein and others are showing on this issue is unbelievable. Apparently, they not prepared to even try to rally support for Obama's plan.
So, are we getting the Conrad co-op plan, that some are now claiming is the only compromise bill with any chance of passage? Actually, there's no reason to think that we will in fact get the Conrad plan, since there's no indication that it enjoys broad support in the Senate. Meanwhile, there are other plans in the Senate. A lot of other plans. Senator Kennedy has proposed a plan that requires private insurers to insure everyone, but his plan like Conrad's does not provide a public option. Senator Rockefeller has proposed a plan that, to its credit, does include public insurance.
So 2009 is shaping up to be exactly like 1994, when Democrats couldn't agree on a health care compromise and eventually gave up completely. Apparently, Senate Democrats may once again be too incompetent and spineless to bring any bill at all to a final vote. No wonder Republicans don't seem worried about opposing health care reform. Why should they be afraid to oppose what the public wants and needs if they never have to cast a vote?
The eight sentences above explain why the Clinton health care proposal of 1994 failed. Unfortunately, these same eight sentences also describe the current state of President Obama's health care proposal.
"Health care is a right." That was the clear message of the Obama campaign in 2008.
Before we go any further, let's review some facts:
America spends two to three times as much as other leading industrialized nations on health care costs per capita. Despite this, nearly one in five Americans under the age of 65 are without health insurance. We have an infant mortality rate that is higher than Cuba or Slovenia and about twice as high as Japan. The main reason why we spend so much and get so little? It's the fact that 31% of health care costs in this country are not for health care, but instead for administrative overhead costs incurred as a result of our perpetual war between providers of health care and the private insurers that they are trying to get to pay for that care.
To my mind, these facts point to a health care crisis in this country that calls for sweeping reform. Of course the Republican Party didn't agree that reform was needed when the Clinton administration proposed it in 1994, and they don't agree today. But I digress. For once, I'm not writing to beat up on the GOP, I'm writing to beat up on certain Democrats.
Before I talk about the Democratic Senators who are foot-dragging on the President's plan, let's review what the plan is. Obama has proposed a National Health Insurance Exchange that would include both private insurance plans and a Medicare-like government run option. Coverage would be guaranteed regardless of health status, and premiums would not vary based on health status either. For the record, this is a great plan and I support it.
Here's a great summary about how the plan works from Jacob Hacker of the The New Republic: "If you don’t have coverage from your employer, you can choose from a menu of health insurance products that includes not just a range of private health plans but also a public insurance plan provided on the same terms nationwide.
The argument for this new public plan is that it would have lower administrative costs; greater leverage to hold down prices; and the transparency, broad patient data, and incentives for long-term investment in health to improve the quality and efficiency of care. Along with new regulations, it would also be the primary check on a private insurance industry that has, for too long, neglected both quality and efficiency, focusing its creative energies instead on new ways to shift costs onto and screen out the sick."
Allowing everyone to buy into a public insurance program if they so choose is known as public option. And how do Americans feel about public option? Overwhelmingly, they support it. So you would think that Congress would be ready to get behind the President's plan. Democrats in the House have done just that, drafting a bill includes a robust public plan that would operate nationally and compete with private insurers.
Meanwhile in the Senate, spineless Democrats are calling public option dead on arrival. Kent Conrad, for example, is proposing a plan that would allow consumers, states, and anybody else so inclined to create cooperatives that would purchase health care for their members. Why does his plan not include public option? Because, according to Conrad, public option doesn't have the votes, with all Senate Republicans and at least three Democrats opposed to it.
Senator Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and a Democratic moderate, has also stated his support for killing public option. Just today, Senator Feinstein of California, who is hardly a conservative, downplayed the possibility of the Obama plan becoming law because she doesn't know that the President, "has the votes right now."
So nearly half the Senate, including some Democrats are totally opposed to public option, even thought it enjoys the support of the President and the public? How can this be? Well, for an explanation, let's return to the Jacob Hacker article I cited earlier:
"The idea of public plan choice was part of all the leading Democratic candidates’ health plans, Senator Max Baucus’ November 2008 White Paper, and the vision of reform articulated earlier this year by key congressional Democrats. All with little attention outside health policy circles--until conservatives, health insurers, and some provider groups decided the public plan was public enemy number one. And so, the misinformation campaign began: A public plan available alongside private plans only for Americans without workplace insurance was suddenly described as a "government takeover” of medicine, the "road to rationing," and (that old standby) "socialized medicine." Republicans drew their lines in the sand, and Democrats started their favorite parlor game: compromising among themselves even before the real debate begins."
The spinelessness that Conrad, Baucus, Feinstein and others are showing on this issue is unbelievable. Apparently, they not prepared to even try to rally support for Obama's plan.
So, are we getting the Conrad co-op plan, that some are now claiming is the only compromise bill with any chance of passage? Actually, there's no reason to think that we will in fact get the Conrad plan, since there's no indication that it enjoys broad support in the Senate. Meanwhile, there are other plans in the Senate. A lot of other plans. Senator Kennedy has proposed a plan that requires private insurers to insure everyone, but his plan like Conrad's does not provide a public option. Senator Rockefeller has proposed a plan that, to its credit, does include public insurance.
So 2009 is shaping up to be exactly like 1994, when Democrats couldn't agree on a health care compromise and eventually gave up completely. Apparently, Senate Democrats may once again be too incompetent and spineless to bring any bill at all to a final vote. No wonder Republicans don't seem worried about opposing health care reform. Why should they be afraid to oppose what the public wants and needs if they never have to cast a vote?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)