FDL Campaign Silo:
It was somewhat disconcerting when Donna Edwards would not confirm to the Hill this week that she would vote against any bill through conference that did not have a public plan:
Edwards, who signed the letter, declined to speculate on whether she would vote against a conference bill without a strong public option.
"That's a long way down the line," Edwards said. "I am talking about the House vote."
So Howie Klein asked her if she'd like to clarify that. Donna released a statement, saying she is "unequivocal, unwavering, and unapologetic" about supporting a public option. But:
It is important that we stay focused on getting a robust public option included in the House version of the bill-- nothing watered down. As a progressive member of the House of Representatives, I can't spend time guessing or speculating about what the Senate will do. I do know that if we don't do our work to get a strong bill out of the House, we won’t be able to beg, borrow or steal a robust public option from the Senate.
Uh -- Rep. Edwards signed a letter on August 17. This is what it said:
We have attached, for your review, a letter from 60 Members of Congress who are firm in their Position that any legislation that moves forward through both chambers, and into a final proposal for the President's signature, MUST contain a public option.
That's more than "speculated," that's a commitment. Through conference. That's why all those people gave all that money.
Indeed.
We're not stupid. That letter said what it said because we're coming to understand the process and your steak sauce techniques. We knew you would try to use that distinction well before you said it. And we know you'll try to tell us later on that "it was this or nothing... and you don't want nothing, do you?" Everyone has known it all along. It's the standard operating procedure for Congressional progressives. That's why we specified we needed something different this time. And it's why the side of "no you can't" always wins, even in the face of overwhelming electoral victory for "yes we can."
No, we don't want nothing. We want what we want. We want what was in the letter you signed.
We've been living with "better than nothing" for years now, on the assumption that something really was better than nothing, and that nothing really was the only alternative to something.
How's it working out for you? How's that economy going? Lots of jobs and clean air and health care in your districts? Yeah? Lots of "something," but also lots of grousing that your people are still living like they're getting nothing.
Time to start thinking about what it means to lay "nothing" at the feet of the people who tell you it's your only other choice. Let's have the question, for once, be whether "something they don't like much" isn't really better than "getting blamed for delivering nothing."
That only works if people think you'll really do it. And right now, even your biggest fans don't really think you'll do it.
I can't even imagine the fire you're going to bring down on yourselves if you ask for thanks in the form of money, then pocket the cash and fold.
UPDATE: I should add that I understand where Donna's coming from on the conference being a long way off. The three House committee bills still need to be unified, Senate Finance hasn't finished and when it does, that still needs to be unified with the HELP bill. And after that, the two houses need to pass their bills, and only then will we see what's in the conference report. And I did make mention of this in the Saturday panel I participated in at Netroots Nation, noting that there was every chance that progressives would come back and say that "all the essential elements and benefits" of a public option -- whatever that may be -- are in the bill, sorta, so... you know... why not?
That's about what I expect. And we can, I suppose, talk about how much of what we wanted is enough. That's the calculus every Member has to go through, and it can be impossible to predict.
But remember that we're talking bargaining strategy here, not substantive legislating. You use the bargaining power to get that substance. Going into the process with a scholarly "we'll see" is an instant signal to the other parties that you're going to be riding in the back, probably taking the hump seat, letting someone else drive and take shotgun.
You, uh... shouldn't do that.
UPDATE 2: Regarding the sentiment that Edwards or anyone else in particular ought to be punished in some way, I have two things to say. First, it's not my ActBlue page, and not my fundraising campaign, so I certainly can't make the call there. And second, if this money is supposed to be connected to deeds and not words, well then, as Edwards says, that's a long way off. I would advise holding the wheel steady, and using the time we have to talk this through with Edwards and the others on the list. If we want their rhetoric to change and their behavior along with it, I'd advise staying engaged. And if you feel wronged in the end, well, then you have something. If you feel a refund is warranted, go for it. But if you're donating and refunding, donating and refunding over and over with each TV appearance, well, that's not going to make you look like much of a player, I don't think.