I just had the misfortune of watching Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey stutter her way through an interview on "Countdown." Guest host Lawrence O'Donnell pressed her on her threat to hold out for the public option, and she barely avoided a complete meltdown. Now, I don't know if the woman has an actual speech impediment, but she comes across like the character of the "batty librarian" from literary lore. Or that crazy aunt with the eight cats. Anyhow, as Chairwoman of the Progressive Caucus, it occurs to me: we're screwed.
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey today reiterated her threat that the product of the House-Senate conference must include a public option "or else." Her Co-Chair, Representative Raul Grijalva (who is probably a complete unknown to most Americans), has already publicly retreated from the public option. How is it an effective strategy for your Co-Chair to publicly undermine your threat? On the same day? Unsurprisingly, House leadership is not entirely concerned about these two shining stars of the progressive movement.
Why are our elected progressive leaders so very weak and incompetent? Has anyone seen Lynn Woolsey or Raul Grijalva speak in public? They make Joe Lieberman look like Cicero in his eloquence and motivational impact. More importantly, people seem to take Lieberman (and Nelson's) threats seriously. I get the sense Nancy Pelosi will lock Lynn Woolsey in a secret room in the basement of the Capitol if she ever lifted a finger against her. Does this woman actually have a great deal of power or influence? I'd like someone to tell me.
I wonder: are the self-declared "progressives" in Congress just too damned old? They seem locked in an Old School Liberalism that worries less about good policy or politics, and more about appropriations (i.e. they'll give up on any policy point if you give them some money for some disadvantaged group). Or maybe self-declared liberals (as opposed to people that focus on working class values) as a group are just useless: for the one or two LaFollettes or Wellstones that come along, we get 10 Lynn Woolseys, that probably care more about getting a $500 million earmark for a study on crystal healing than they do about fundamental policy.
Maybe I'm being too hard on the woman. But then again, I don't think so. She doesn't come across well, and no one fears her, and she gives progressives a bad name when she goes on national TV as the voice of progressives. Especially when she issues a series of threats she has no intention of keeping.
Maybe we should only support Democrats with a proven track record of leadership AND that promise to join the Progressive Caucus in the House when elected? Maybe we should hold elected progressives to a higher standard when it actually comes to governance (i.e. don't make a threat unless you have some capacity or willingness to keep it).
Maybe it's time for some tougher progressives, no matter how you feel about the current health care debate. A Lynn Woolsey liberal is never going to change the world.