Stephanopoulos: Kennedy Would Have Agreed To Ditch The Public Option

What a historical revisionist little bastard. I hope he gets hives.

These "serious" people are too dim to understand the political time bomb that would be created by selling people to the insurance mafia via a mandate, without the safety valve provided by a genuine public option. Who, disproportionately, are the people going bare now who would be pissed off by being forced to buy overpriced crappy policies from United Health et al.? Why, young people- the same demographic that played a major part in electing Obama. Brilliant way for the Democrats to shoot themselves in the foot.

Stephadiculous is wrong.

By my count, there are the votes in the Senate. Based on TPM's coverage yesterday, all we need to do is pick up five of the 13 Senate Dems who are wavering on the public option. That seems to me to be eminently doable. That gets us to 51 votes, which is what we need if it's done through reconciliation or if all the Dems (plus Snowe or Kennedy's replacement) vote for cloture.

I don't have any special insight into what Senator Kennedy would have done, but my guess is he would have fought all out for the public option -- pursuing something akin to the strategy noted above -- and only if it became clear it was unattainable (and we're not there yet) would he compromise to get something better than the status quo.

How the hell would George Stephanopoulo know what Sen. Kennedy would or wouldn't of wanted? He doesn't speak for Kennedy's conscious. Stephanopoulos represents everything i hate about our media. Typical.

Stephie should run for office. He'd find out just how much we value his opinion.

George misses the point when he says that Kennedy "...was willing to take a portion, incremental gain even if he couldn't get everything he was calling for."

Yes, that is true, Kennedy was a realist and a negotiator at times. But he always made sure he was negotiating from a position of strength, not buckling out of a sense of weakness.

I can personally attest from working in DC with Senator Kennedy and his staff on important legislation around HIV/AIDS, disability, health access, immigration and appropriations that he and his staff were aggressive and determined in getting what the Senator wanted.

Senator Kennedy didn't go into negotiations without preparing his side, without doing everything possible to turn things to his side.

Senator Kennedy's office always had a developed strategy -- everything around timing, hearings, sponsors, endorsements, data, media messages, grassroots lobbying and more was determined long before he moved forward with an initiative. (And they always consulted with the relevant advocates for the affected populations about what was essential and what was unacceptable.)

When things were seeming to go poorly, his staff (or the Senator personally) would bring together the advocacy groups and tell them exactly what they needed to do to convince wavering Senators, how to coordinate their grassroots actions with his legislative strategy. They were willing to bang heads when they needed to whip advocates into shape.

He was willing to be extremely direct and blunt about when groups weren't doing what was necessary to get provisions included in law, and what the consequences could be. Neither the Senator nor his staffers tolerated advocacy groups who whined and complained but weren't willing to do the heavy lifting needed.

Perhaps most importantly, they most valued the groups that were able to actually mobilize directly with the impacted population-- whether it was disability groups that could bring hundreds of people in wheelchairs to a protest, groups of people living with HIV/AIDS who could provide first hand testimony about the urgency of the issue, or parents of children with special needs to advocate for their children. They relied on these groups both for advice and for effective organizing, and made them full partners in legislating.

He could (and would) also bluntly call lobbyists on the carpet when they were standing in his way, undermining his legislation, or playing both sides of the argument. He could often turn around even the most indifferent or hostile groups (businesses, non-profits, state governments, community advocates, etc.) I personally saw him effectively ream out high-paid lobbyists and make cower in fear of the consequences of opposing him. (At the same time, he would always be willing to listen to their legitimate concerns and try to address them.)

I also witnessed numerous times when he brought incredible persuasion and pressure on his colleagues, especially those inside the Democratic caucus. His fellow Senators universally admired the Senator, knew he was knowledgeable on the issues, and had friendly relations with him -- they listened when he talked.

And he would be relentless in making his case with other Senators -- constantly following up, making sure his staff was coordinating with other staffs, personally pigeon-holing Senators (on the floor, the elevators, the cafeteria, in caucus,a social gatherings, in hearing rooms, in hallways, etc). And while the relationships were always very friendly, he was willing to confront directly and sometimes forcefully Democratic Senators who were being obstructionist, timid or disingenuous.

In his dealings with Republican Senators he was always absolutely clear on what his bottom line was, what he wasn't willing to negotiate away. And he would work as hard to convince Republicans to support his positions as he did Democrats.

And when that didn't work, yes, he sought common ground, tried to find innovative ways around political stumbling blocks, and would make compromises on aspects of legislation. But he would also be willing to block action, resist unacceptable changes, and stop legislation when it didn't meet his standards. He would walk away from the negotiating table when he needed to.

These media revisionists and Republicans with the "Ted would make deals" meme seem to forget that in his negotiations, Senator Kennedy always fared much better than those he was negotiating with. His combination of determination, preparation, superior staffing, persuasion skills, and strategic wisdom meant that he usually got most of what he wanted without giving up things that really mattered.

And surely George Stephanopoulos remembers from his time in the first term of the Clinton White House that Senator Kennedy was equally willing to do the same thing with administration officials, from the President to Cabinet officers to legislative strategists. So many times he was frustrated when the Clinton folks wouldn't listen to his advice on getting things done despite his forceful expression of how to do it. (And many close to the scene believe that had the Clinton administration listened, the disasters of health care, don't ask/don't tell, and other major missteps.)

The picture being painted of Senator Kennedy as being successful because he was willing to compromise totally misses the point of why he was so effective. Senator Kennedy used every debate, every piece of legislation, every negotiation as a way to advance the agenda, not to fold up and fall back to the lowest common denominator position.

The idea that Senator Kennedy would give up such a critical piece of health care reform in some easy compromise for bipartisanship's sake ignores the reality of how he operated and how hard he pushed to win on the issues that matter.

Cross post from yesterday...

Support for the public option remains strong

AARP / Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates (D) 8/12-13/09; 1,000 adults, 3.1% margin of error Mode: Internet (PSB: release, toplines)

To what degree do you favor or oppose the following health care proposals?

Making insurance available to everyone regardless of their health history
86% Favor, 11% Oppose

Starting a new federal health insurance plan that individuals could purchase if they can't afford private plans offered to them
79% Favor, 18% Oppose

Keeping health insurance mainly a private industry but allowing the government to serve as an industry watchdog to help expand coverage and keep an eye on costs
62% Favor, 32% Oppose

Stephanhuffalottapuss is an exactly perfect example of the putrid rot at the heart of DLC/90's style Democratic centrist 'triangulation.' See, Steffie can read the tea leaves, see, he knows the score; he really, really wants health care reform as much as anyone, so as a clear eyed pragmatist (who might just be a little, you know, well, smarter and well informed than us rubes), as a realist unaffected by partisan bias he already KNOWS what the end result's gonna be, see, so let's just take the smart path to success and follow Steffie's crystal ball gazing insight to the best possible result which Steffie in his Infinite Greatness has already determined for us, us lucky rubes. A more powerful strategy for successful bargaining, especially in a democracy where one side (you know - the oh-so-reasonable insane clown/corporate party, er, Redouchlicans) has not in fifteen-plus years shown one iota of willingness for comity-based compromise, I cannot imagine.

This collapse to a predetermined ‘center’ as negotiating strategy is one of the most arrogant AND pathetic positions one can assume in a democracy. It’s like throwing the pair out of a full house and politely implying that everyone else should do the same. Whether as cover for Dem hauling corporate water, or because of retarded misunderstanding of the processes of democracy, or because of crippling personality deficiencies, it’s insanely ineffective negotiating; it’s incredibly arrogant and dismissive of the democratic process; it emboldens and strengthens the worst aspects of reactionary behavior...when will the Steffies of the world just STFU and go back to accounting where they belong? I’d rather deal with Limbo and Lierly than Steffie. At least they know how to fight for what they (supposedly) believe in.

If everyone hates the insurance industry because they do all sorts of nasty things to avoid adverse selection, and Congress enacts a law that forbids those things: denying or making coverage more expensive to those who are less healthy/have pre-existing conditions, then what is the problem. If they can no longer discriminate they won't be competing based not on selecting the healthiest pool/ denying claims but on creating the largest risk pools they can.

If we are concerned about the lack of competition in some markets, and then Congress passes a law allowing any person or company to use the national insurance exchange under Federal regulations(essentially creating a single national marketplace rather than 50 individual ones), what is the problem.

If Congress does not or cannot implement payment rules that increase the quality of care while reducing it's cost in the 47% of the health care market the Federal and State governments already currently pay for, why would you think a "public option" would be capable of doing so. In other words, how does paying for half of health care in the united states not give the government leverage to implement the changes in the cost structure of health care that we all need?

Stephanopolous is what's wrong with our media and politics Today. He's a relic from the past. A Clintonite from the 90s who was all about compromising democratic principles for the sake easing white democratic, and conservative working class fake fears about liberalism. Stephie and Rahmn Emanuel are both from the Clinton era.

By the way, does anybody really believe that all this mind-fucking stuff about mandates, regulations, subsidies and public options really is an EASIER sell to the public than would have been these three simple words: "Medicare For All"? Polls have consistently shown high levels of support for the latter.

This whole thing has been an enormous and tragic wasted opportunity, thanks to our fucked up, bought and paid for political system.

Thank goodness there are journalists out there with a freakin clue who Ted Kennedy really was, like Sam Tanenhaus.

Hey Steffy, put this in your pipe and smoke it....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/weekinreview/30tanenhaus.html?hp

The public supports a public option by a large margin. That's all the Congress, especially the Senate, needs to know. Support it and get reelected, oppose it and ....well. I like the term 'seeded' used to describe the idea of dropping the public option. It's appropriate. I feel as if there's a campaign to create the impression that lack of support, inside and outside Washington, is making the possibility of a reform package with a public option an impossibility. Like everything else, it's spin, designed to move opinion, not report fact.

Stephanopoulos is full of shit. Kennedy worked on the issue for 47 years: he knew what was needed, and what compromises were actually sell-outs.

What has this man been sniffing?He sounds like Dick Morris!! Kennedy would NOT have wanted the public option taken out. Has he been receiving talking points from Faux News. The votes are there. All they need are 51 votes. Everybody needs to qit selling Obama short. This plan will pass

This is the problem: I trusted Ted Kennedy. I never had to worry that he would sell out to the highest bidder in Washington. If Ted said compromise was in order to achieve a greater goal, then I believed the best compromise would be negotiated.

I cannot feel the same degree of trust with Obama or with any of the other Dems negotiating this Health Care Reform. Obama lost me from the day he announced single-payer was off the table, not even to be discussed because the Insurance Industry would not allow it. The rest have shown a DLC-style lack of commitment in favor of campaign financing as to make of themselves mere shadows of real legislators and leaders on this issue.

And George Stephanopolous? We should trust him to tell us what compromises are needed, or trust that he channels Ted Kennedy and can speak for him on this issue? Oy!