I think Hoyer might be a bit out of touch with his caucus.
At his weekly press conference this morning, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) told reporters that the Senate health care bill would be better than no reform at all. He also insisted that, if Republican Scott Brown wins the Massachusetts Senate special election tonight, Congress can act to pass reform in the approximately 15-day window between tonight and when Republican Scott Brown is officially seated.
I asked Hoyer whether he believes the Senate's health care bill would be better than no bill at all.
"I think the Senate bill clearly is better than nothing," Hoyer said....
As we've reported, there's likely to be a 15 day window between when the winner of tonight's election is determined, and when the winner is sworn in. Another reporter asked Hoyer, "is it feasible to pass legislation of this magnitude in the next 15 days."
Hoyer answered emphatically: "Yes."
It's a tad unclear precisely whom Hoyer is speaking for. The House leadership is continuing to negotiate a compromise. One of Hoyer's Blue Dogs, Bart Stupak, has said the Senate bill is unacceptable. The same goes for progressives.
Weiner, one of the House’s more progressive members, said "it’s going to be very hard" to ask members of the House to vote for the Senate bill — what some believe would be a likely scenario if Democrats lose the Massachusetts Senate seat....
"I’d have a very difficult time doing that," Weiner said about voting yes to the Senate’s bill.
He's not the only one. Here's Grijalva:
"I'm not sure about who the audience is we are talking to. Are we talking to the audience that expected much more for us or are we talking to the audience that politically wanted to get something done? That's what makes the vote difficult for progressives."
....
There are, of course, ways to win these lawmakers over. Grijalva himself, hinted that a direct assurance from the president that he will push for changes to health care legislation immediately after it is passed into law (through the use of reconciliation) would go a long way to alleviate his concerns.
"It has to be from the White House and it has to be verbally and publicly from the president, saying that we will go along with the understanding that other things we want will be tackled independently and immediately," he explained.
These members obviously need more than "good enough," and so do their constituents. "Better than nothing" isn't really good enough when you're talking about critical domestic legislation upon which your party's political fortunes might be riding in November. Better than nothing really isn't the target lawmakers should be aiming for when making law that will have a direct impact on millions of Americans. Seems like it might be a good idea to aim just a little bit higher than better than nothing. "Better than nothing" is taking absolutely the wrong lesson from what's happening in Massachusetts, from what's happening in the nation. The American electorate isn't in the mood for "better than nothing," and it's not what they elected Dems in 2006 and 2008 to deliver.
If Coakley wins, negotiations can continue to make this bill the best policy Dems can achieve, the one that will make lives better and make people excited to vote Democratic again. Should Coakley lose, panicking and either dropping the bill entirely or shoving through a flawed bill that will be hard to sell to the Democratic base would be a disastrous response. The responsible alternative, the one Grijalva points to, is not letting reform die, but also not letting "better than nothing" prevail.