This will be a short diary. Since Jim Cooper is my US Congressman, and heartily supports President Obama and his plan for health insurance reform, I think it's time that we roll out the comparison between Jim Cooper and Dennis Kucinich.
Both voted against healthcare reform. Cooper did it in 1994. Kucinich did it in 2009 and says he'll do it again in 2010.
Both stood on principle.
And both, while potentially "right," unwittingly (or perhaps intentionally?) served as destructive voices and votes against much-needed comprehensive healthcare reform.
And while Cooper helped usher in the 1994 Contract with America crowd that set back the Democratic Party agenda for 15 years, Kucinich is set to repeat that feat in 2010.
Here's some background courtesy of Ezra Klein (from 2008, by the way, during the primary season when Klein was opposed to Obama's approach):
There were Congressmen in 1994 who came together to try and fashion a compromise after the Clinton health care bill seemed a clear failure. But Jim Cooper was not among their number. Rather, he was a uniquely pernicious actor who worked to undermine the plan both before, and directly after, its introduction. As we learn from this terrific timeline of the battle, in June of 1993, about three months before the Clinton plan came out, Cooper met with Clinton to "explore their differences over health care." Those differences were "universal coverage." the "employer mandate," and Cooper's fear that "the administration was being pushed to the left by liberals in the House."
So let's be clear on where Cooper starts: He was against universal coverage. He was a conservative Democrat who wanted a minimalist, incremental approach to health care that wouldn't offend his corporate constituencies. He thought the Clinton plan was too liberal, even as it began as a compromise between liberal visions of single payer and conservative dreams of market competition. Then, on October 6, 1993, two weeks after the Clinton bill is released, Cooper reintroduces his own plan, creating, from the outset, a weak, moderate "alternative" for business, centrists, and other opponents of reform to rally around. "Privately," we learn, "Cooper is convinced the White House will have to bend and accept his position."
Cooper was, from the beginning, an enemy of reform, not a constructive participant seeking compromise. He did not survey the assembled bills and try and forge a deal. Rather, he did everything he could to undermine the Clinton plan, and played a key role in destroying its chances by shattering the Democratic legislative strategy ("Thwarted on the Republican side of the aisle, Dingell turns back to his Democrats -- and once again finds Jim Cooper standing in his way.") and peeling off Blue Dogs and business. Without even the pretense of party unity, there was never the underlying foundation to force negotiations among the key players -- and so, contrary to Brad's claims, Cooper should be remembered not for trying to cut a deal, but for undermining the conditions and legislation that would've allowed a deal to have been cut. He was out for his campaign contributors and, as a read of The System makes clear, his own glory. He wanted to be the dealmaker of health care. He wanted it so bad that he killed the damn thing. (I added the bold typeface.)
Now, I ask you - politically, how is Kucinich in 2010 any different from Cooper in 1994?