Tweet
Although I stand by the overall analysis in this post on progressive discourse on the "public option," any reference I made to "message discipline" specifically within the Congressional Progressive Caucus was utterly and tragically wrong. I mistook the CPC leadership for the whole.
I’ve made this point in various comments over the last several weeks but feel the need to drive it home definitively. The refusal of most CPC members to sign on to Jane’s pledge, despite its modest robustness criteria in comparison with those published by the CPC itself, is infuriating.
Carolyn Maloney is the last straw. Fortunately, as a New Yorker, I can do something about that. (I don’t suppose Ned Lamont would be willing to front Jonathan Tasini a few million bucks to leave both Maloney and Gillibrand in the dust?)
11 Comments
As a fellow NYer, that Senate race is shaping up to be miiiighty interesting. Would Tasini really run?
Tasini’s all in. I supported him when he ran against Hillary in 2006, but he didn’t have kind of resources that allowed Ned Lamont to drive Lieberman out of the Democratic Party. Also, Hillary, while abominable on many levels, hardly constituted as unctuous a target as Rape Gurney Joe.
Tasini would still be quite the longshot, though, even with a serious benefactor.
Thank you so much Ralph. This means a lot.
I’m one of the soldiers who makes a few calls everyday, kicks in a few bucks.
Whatever direction we go forward on this legislation, has to be made simple/basic enough for me and the staffers/interns on the other end of the phone. That’s a big stumbling block, but Jane is a genius on integrating all those factors, narratives into messaging and positioning.
Hah! Thanks, ralphbon. Welcome to my world. It’s hard to communicate just how disorganized and irratic the progressive caucus is. They’re a mess, nobody takes them seriously, and they don’t take themselves seriously.
It’s been hard confronting that, but does turn out to be true.
with your laser vision and skills beaming in..sure you could get them on the same page. As if you do not have enough on your plate.
Thanks for all you do Jane…
I’d love to know the backstory behind Bill Goold’s departure. And Darcy Burner’s American Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation has been rather quiet; no new videos posted for more than a month. I hope that effort isn’t foundering. The concept of providing a bridge between engaged citizens and the caucus — demonstrating that progressive Americans take the caucus seriously even if its own members haven’t been — could and should serve as encouragement for the CPC to flex some unified muscle.
ralphbon – have you seen this (ok, i expect you have. but just in case….) from mcjoan at daily kos?
maloney is not one of the 50, but she is listed as “leaning yes.”
!!!!!
Wow! Just this morning, my congresswoman’s staff said she was uncommitted to Jane’s pledge, much less the CPC criteria. Hope this isn’t just more smoke-blowing!
ralphbon!
huffpo now reporting confirmed by woosley (ht petrocelli)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..34425.html
hint: maybe this could use a diary. although probably not by me…. *g*
maloney’s blowing off constituent’s questions re the pledge is indeed lame (big fan of tasini here!).
… perhaps this will seem strange/confusing considering that i am a single payer extremist AND have been calling for the public option whipping action, but i don’t think i would object if she (or other rep) had said that she would vote against any healthcare reform bill that included a mandate without a “robust” (assume
a can openeran acceptable criteria) but might consider supporting other healthcare reform legislation (fixing and improving medicare, making preventing denial of coverage (or higher premiums) or care due to pre-existing conditions, etc) even if it came without public option.imo it’s the mandate that requires a workable public option.
speaking of confusing, the current house bill does not appear (i think??) to meet the requirement of nationwide, but jason says “we’re” supporting it? or do i not understand what nationwide means? i thought it meant that the public option would be available to all.
http://seminal.firedoglake.com…..ment-56476
I would support Bill Clinton if we could convince him to run.