Blue Dogs Offer Bogus Justifications for Opposing Real Health Reform

Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left at 4:19 PM on September 18, 2009.

The primary justification that conservative and moderate Democrats offer for their policies is not the strength of the policy, but rather its electoral and legislative viability. The way that members of the Senate Conservadem group talking about the public option is a good example of this:

• Joe Lieberman cites the lack of votes as his main reason for opposing a public option:

  And the third, and probably the most important, the votes are not there for a public health plan, government-run option.

• Kent Conrad refuses to go on the record on a public option, simply declaring the issue "moot":

  Pressed, Conrad's spokesman said the senator doesn't have an opinion on the public option, because he believes the issue is "moot."

• Max Baucus:

  "The public option cannot pass the Senate," Baucus said.

• Bill Nelson:

  "You can't get 60 votes in the Senate," Nelson said of a public option. "I'm trying to get something passed."

• Mark Pryor:

  "My guess is that there are not votes to do it in the Senate, even a very modest public option like what he's talking about," Pryor said.

Instead of arguing against the public option in policy terms, the Senators instead argue that the public option simply cannot pass. In fact, among these five Senators, only Joe Lieberman has even stated his opposition to a public option--and Lieberman cites the inability of the public option to pass as his "most important" rationale for opposition.

What's worse is that the argument 60 votes are needed for the public option is simply false. Not only have many experts argued that a public option can be included in reconciliation, but any filibuster can be broken with only 51 Senators. Even if there are differing interpretations of reconciliation, the later cannot be disputed--any filibuster can be broken with 51 votes.

This is how conservative Democrats talk to progressive Democrats.  Instead of coming out against progressive policy ideas on their merits, they instead offer up process argument.  Further, as is the case with the arguments above, such process arguments are typically bogus.  They all claim there aren't enough votes for a public option, without citing a list of Senators that makes it impossible, and without addressing either reconciliation or the nuclear option.

The lack of transparency from these Senators, not to mention the degree to which they assume their audiences are too uninformed about Senate rules and public statements on Senate support for the public option to know the difference, is infuriating. It is though they really believe they can trick us into thinking they are on our side, and we are too stupid to know the difference. Oh wait--that is exactly what they think:

Nelson said most of the public option advocates "don't have a clue," about what it would take to create such a plan. "The whole thing is so complicated you can't expect them to understand."

We have to diffuse these process arguments. We need to show that all of these Democrats talking about the need for 60 votes are simply lying. Because of the nuclear option, there is no need for 60 votes on anything--just a desire for 60 votes in order to preserve Senate manners. Countless Democrats and pundits have been spreading this fundamental mistruth about the operation of the Senate, and using it as justification for why the Senate continues to either defeat or water down every aspect of the progressive agenda. They don't go on record against progressive policy, but just claim their hands are tied. That simply isn't true. We need to put an end to this conspiracy of bogus process arguments.  

Tagged as: lieberman, baucus, blue dogs, pryor, conrad, health reform, nelson

Chris Bowers was a full-time editor at MyDD from May 2004 until June 2007. Some of his projects have included the creation of the Liberal Blog Advertising Network, the first scientifically random poll of progressive netroots activists, the Use It Or Lose It campaign, the nation's most accurate forecast of Democratic house pickups in 2006, and the 2006 Googlebomb the Elections campaign.