Weiner: “I Don’t See Any Way” I Can Vote For Bill Without Public Option
We now have a House Dem who’s not a member of the progressive caucus signaling he won’t vote for a health care bill without a public option.
Dem Rep. Anthony Weiner, who’s taken on a counterintuitive and increasingly high profile role defending the public plan, just said for the first time in an interview with me that he doesn’t see “any way” he can vote for a bill without the public option in it.
“I dont see how I could,” said Weiner, when I asked whether he’d vote for a bill without a robust public plan. “I dont see any way I could.” His throwing down of the gauntlet is more striking when you consider that he’s known at home in New York as a moderate who’s not known for bucking leadership.
Indeed, Weiner also suggested that liberals should defy the President and Nancy Pelosi and oppose a bill without a public option. If not, they only have only themselves to blame for their lack of clout relative to, say, Blue Dog Dems, he added.
“All of the protest letters in the world don’t add up to much if you don’t finally stand up and vote No on something the President and Nancy want,” Weiner said. “There is clearly a sense that progressives in Congress are easily rolled.”
“If the Congressional left can’t pass even something as modest as a watered down public option, then frankly I don’t think anyone is going to take the left very seriously later on in this Congress,” Weiner continued. “When Blue Dogs talk, there are fewer of them but they have more influence than when progressives talk.”
Said Weiner: “You can only shake the saber so often before someone expects you to use it.”
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
It’s a nice sentiment but unfortunately Pelosi has already telegraphed the coming collapse. There’s no way 40 house dems will do this to Obama–even if he is a spineless slug.
@Greg: Just for clarity:
By “robust” does he mean tied to Medicare rates without a trigger?
And is he referring to a House bill, a conference bill, a reconciled bill, or all three?
sbj, he’s talking about the same public option that liberals in the progressive caucus are demanding…
Good. This is the kind of talk and action we need. I am not sure why a few progressive Dems have started lowering the bar when they were having great success in shifting the debate. The House progressives do need to prove they are a force to be negotiated with. Flexing their muscles helps Obama tremendously and is good for Congress overall.
@Greg: But at least four of the previous signer-ons to the robust option (no trigger, tied to Medicare) have indicated that “robust” might include a trigger…
Watch Weiner for 2016…
Question: Anyone having difficulty commenting? Please let me know what problems you’re having…
Who does this Weiner think he is, demanding something that the majority of Americans support.
Test post for Greg.
Greg,
My test post went through immediately.
All we need is 218 votes and if Weiner doesn’t vote for the final bill than they will need a blue dog vote.
Weiner may not vote for it but there are progressives who will once the bill comes out of the conference committee.
To hell with that Trigger nonsense.
When you boil it down; all that stupid Trigger proposal is; A future solution for an existing problem.
Why not use that same stupid reasoning when treating patients.
Just tell all those sick people who show up at the doctor or hospital. We will apply a Trigger treatment to you. Go away, and if you are not dead, and are still sick, three years from now, then we will try to cure you.
Ramesh Pnnuru debunks the notion, so often articulated on this blog that right’s “misinformation” and lies.
Count on it: If liberals lose on health care — either because no major legislation passes or because they consider whatever legislation does pass inadequate — they are going to blame the loss on a campaign of deception by their critics. While liberals have more political power now than at any point in at least three decades, they also have a generation of experience at being sore losers. So the town-hall protesters are going to be 2009’s version of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Bush v. Gore, or the people who ran the Willie Horton ads: a way for liberals to blame political disappointment on the perfidy of their opponents and thus make it a token of their own moral superiority. That way, they will not have to contemplate the possibility that the public has a rational basis for opposing their health-care proposals.
You’d almost think Ponnuru has been reading this blog.
They just need 218 votes. Some how Pelosi will corral 218 votes.
“You’d almost think Ponnuru has been reading this blog.”
LOL!
I’m having no end of trouble with the internet today – so excuse me if I’m in and out. This page doesn’t load right and nothing is working like it should.
Whoops. Should read “…that the right is responsible for “misinformation” and lies.”
greg,
sorry for the parsing, but was the Congressman specific about the Bill out of Conference or just the House Bill ??
@Greg: Re problems with commenting.
No problems posting, but sometimes when I reload the page I get fewer comments than were there previously. Then when I reload again, back to the correct number.
Dem Rep. Anthony Weiner, … just said … in an interview with me that he doesn’t see “any way” he can vote for a bill without the public option in it.
I’m not surprised by this. I’ve only seen one of his interviews (back in late July or early August, IIRC), but even then he was making a very assertive case for, at minimum, a robust public option (& preferably a single payer approach). If he’s held that position consistently since then (& my impression is that he has), he’d be destroying his own credibility if he didn’t vote against a bill lacking a public option.
I am not sure why a few progressive Dems have started lowering the bar
I assume it’s because what they want won’t get through the more conservative Senate.
Hey Bernie:
Wondering what you think of Thomas Friedman’s latest, extolling the virtues of Chinese autocracy relative to our current “one party democracy” which, he says, is worse.
One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.
Ah, the advantages of fascism.
“They just need 218 votes. Some how Pelosi will corral 218 votes.”
they only need 40 to stop a crappy ‘triggers’ bill
Good for Weiner! We need more Democrats to stand up, in the House AND the Senate, and stand firm on the inclusion of a strong, open, Public Option! If there’s no Public Option, there’s no health insurance reform!
@Scott C – I’d read Ponnuru’s piece earlier today and didn’t even bother noting it here for the sake of humor. Humor is unpredictable.
As to Freidman, I don’t bother to attend to his columns any longer.
A permanent Republican majority (single party rule) was one of Rove’s goals. And it is a goal shared by the talk radio/FOX crowd including Ayres and by anyone who holds that a Dem or progressive government is unAmerican and ought never to be allowed to govern.
Freidman uses the term “autocracy” which is incorrect usage for what he’s describing.
As to fascism, it is by definition, authoritarian nationalism aligned with or supported by a corporatist ideology.
Of course, I’d be the last one to suggest that the modern Republican party (and conservative movement) demonstrates extreme levels of nationalist fervor, has authoritarian tendencies or holds a corporatist ideology as dear and truthful.
Bernie:
I’d read Ponnuru’s piece earlier today and didn’t even bother noting it here for the sake of humor.
That’s funny.
And it is a goal shared by the talk radio/FOX crowd including Ayres and by anyone who holds that a Dem or progressive government is unAmerican and ought never to be allowed to govern.
I know lots of people who hope that progressives will never come to govern. I don’t know anyone who thinks progressives should be disallowed (by law?) from governing.
BTW, I think you meant Ailes, not Ayres. Unless I am mistaken, the terrorist would love for progressives to come to power.
I hope more people like Weiner start stepping up to the plate! It disturbs me that so many of these folks sitting in Congress do nothing to support their party or the good of the people. K-street must have many of them in a stranglehold…. and that’s ashame.