TPMDC

Progressive Groups Turn Up Heat on Baucus, Snowe in Wake of Public Option Votes


Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Moments after the Senate Finance Committee rejected two public option amendments yesterday, two groups that have been targeting the panel's chairman Max Baucus, and key Republican Olympia Snowe latched on to their votes in a fundraising bid to turn up the heat on both senators.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America have been running hard hitting ads in Montana, Maine, and Washington, DC, targeting Baucus and Snowe for failing to support a public option. With their votes registered, the groups are now seeking to extend the ad buys:

"Today, we are raising our fundraising goal to $200,000 to PUMMEL Baucus and Snowe with ads in their home states featuring the voices of their constituents," reads an email from PCCC to members.

You can see the ads here and here. And you can read the entire letter below the fold.

Adam,

BREAKING NEWS: Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) just voted against the public health insurance option in the Senate Finance Committee. They were the deciding votes in the first of several times the Senate will take on this issue in the coming weeks.

These senators just voted against what their own constituents want -- and voted with corporate interests that have given them millions.

Enough! Baucus and Snowe need to feel political pain right now -- and be forced to answer to their constituents in advance of future votes.

Today, we are raising our fundraising goal to $200,000 to PUMMEL Baucus and Snowe with ads in their home states featuring the voices of their constituents.

Can you chip in and demand accountability? Click here.

Since yesterday, PCCC and Democracy for America members raised over $90,000 toward our goal of $100,000 to run ads targeting Baucus -- way ahead of schedule. Those ads are just getting started on TV.

After we reach that initial goal to pressure Baucus, we'll split future fundraising between the two senators.

These two senators are out of step with their constituents and deserve pressure and political pain right now. This is the time to fight.

Can you chip in to help us flood Maine and Montana with accountability ads today? Click here.

Thanks for being a bold progressive.

Comments (19) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (3)

September 30, 2009 10:23 AM   

It is not JUST the progressives...the independents and American Dems are for the public option and know reform is not possible without it ..

Call them 1.866.311.3405 or 1. 800.828.0498! Tl them you do not buy their giveaway to corporations!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 30, 2009 10:47 AM   

Bury them w/ ads...and then do some more ads....I'm donating foir the third time!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 30, 2009 10:55 AM   

I'll donate to that!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 30, 2009 11:11 AM    in reply to Indie Pro

for those pinning their hopes on the public option coming out in the conference committee, here is a take that says Baucus has all ready killed the public option:


Once in conference, negotiators will have to reconcile the Senate bill with its far more progressive House conterpart (which will include some kind of public plan). Should Reid and Pelosi stack the committee with public option advocates like Rockefeller, Schumer, or Schakowsky, the option will live another day — no Democrat would vote against a health care package simply because it includes a public option that attracts some 10 million enrollees. Conversely, if likely conferees Baucus and Conrad feel ‘constrained’ to vote with Republicans, the option will likely die.

The final legislation won’t include a Medicare-like public option that saves the government $50 to $100 billion over 10 years. Nor will the plan negotiates rates with providers and compete on a level playing field with private insurers. In fact, it won’t be a national plan at all.

Instead, the very same Democrats who defeated the national program during mark-up, will likely resurrect a discarded idea floated by the New America Foundation and momentarily embraced by the White House. That compromise will create a network of public options modeled on state employee benefit plans. The proposal could be triggered by Snowe’s amendment if reform did not meet a low affordability measure, but any state-based proposal would lack the market clout to lower overall health care spending, reform health care delivery, or hold private health insurers accountable.

Today may have been the death of the public option and the birth of state-based public options.


read more here:
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/09/29/baucus-option/

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 30, 2009 11:12 AM    in reply to Indie Pro

but any state-based proposal would lack the market clout to lower overall health care spending, reform health care delivery, or hold private health insurers accountable.

Today may have been the death of the public option and the birth of state-based public options.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 30, 2009 11:27 AM    in reply to Indie Pro

If this is true, could States band together to create some sort of Regional Public Option that might have a better chance of competing with the big insurers? New England, the Northwest, and other places are going to be looking long and hard at their options should the Federal Government come up short.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 30, 2009 11:02 AM   

I'd endeavor to remind the Progressives that Baucus's vote in both cases was at least *allegedly* cast against the measure for parliamentary reasons- presumably if the others Democratic apostates had voted in favor (enough for it to pass), he would have done the same. I blame Conrad Lincoln and Snowe more for the failure of the Schumer amendment to pass than Baucus.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 30, 2009 11:13 AM   

I agree with Howard Dean on just about everything with regard to getting a health care reform bill passed. But, when he said that he thought these ads were a bad idea, I had to draw the line.

People who say that it's damaging the party to attack Dems have got it backwards. It's damaging the party when you've got a few senators from states with small populations--over-represented in the Senate--who are paying more attention to their corporate benefactors and a bunch of loudmouth right-wing idiots than they are to the clear majority of Americans.

While Baucus and Conrad and Nelson and Lincoln screw around, people are dying because the insurance companies have cut them off. I don't want that kind of Democrat in Congress. If they want to get rich off of the insurance companies, they should quit the Senate and go work as lobbyists.

And these same Dems will try to tell you that they're stuck, that they can't get re-elected without that corporate money. Let's put it to the test. Let's see how they vote on public financing of campaigns. I can tell you already that they'll fight against it tooth and nail. And they'll keep taking money from special interests in return for fighting it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 30, 2009 11:20 AM    in reply to chimpale

It's not a bad idea. They just don't like being called out on their bullshit. People are doing it because they're pissed off. If Congress doesn't want to see these commercials, stop pissing people off and start representing their views.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 30, 2009 11:33 AM   

democracy...65% want a public option and it died because of special interests and a mandate to force us to pay private insurance companies or face fines and enforcement measures. PUBLIC POLICY by a democractic controlled white house and congress! Mandating profit by morally corrupt monoplies with the backing of PUBLIC POLICY!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 30, 2009 11:40 AM   

I'm neutral on the ads. An awful lot of smart people on the right side of things, including Schumer, Rockefeller and Dean, say the ads are making it harder for them to move the targets because some of them are petrified of being seen as knuckling under to pressure from the evil libruls and others are just getting too mad to be reasoned with. (I expect the fear and anger are opposite sides of the same coin, actually.) But if they succeed in moving the dial on the local polls of their constituients--move them from "supports public option" to "supports public option and will be pissed enough to let it affect my vote," I mean--that's really the only thing these guys take more seriously than campaign donations. A good enough case can be made either way to make it hard for me to declare one side "right," and the other "wrong."

But, sorry, but this fundraising appeal is just plain immature. It reflects the mentality of a bad high school football coach rather than that of people who have a plan for actually achieving a goal.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 30, 2009 3:52 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

...others are just getting too mad to be reasoned with.

Like Ben Nelson. It's funny that these guys can get mad about being rightfully accused of taking a shitload of money from the insurance companies and then defending those companies against their constituents' best interests. But, put a bunch of loony right-wing screamers in front of them or their fellow Democrats, brandishing their sidearms or calling them every name in the book, and they melt like butter.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 30, 2009 11:50 AM   

These two are politicians and they know that ads like these can be made about them yet they still stood firm and voted no. I think it's time to change tactics because previous ads have not changed their minds.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 30, 2009 1:10 PM   

Baucus won re-election last year with 73% of the vote. Snowe won re-election in 2006 with 74% of the vote. Do you think they really care about these ads? A total waste of money

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 30, 2009 1:46 PM    in reply to Campesino

They won by those margin cuz no one actively campaigned against 'em.You really think their reputations are going to be still wholesome after folks get wind of how egregious their attidtude to unfortunate Americans are ?

Look if the same percentage of their constitutents still keep 'em in high regard,well,heck every Carnival barker ought to move to their states and put up a sale sign for the Brooklyn bridge.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 30, 2009 2:00 PM    in reply to Juble

If you really think ads run now will have any effect on elections in 2012 and 2014 all I can say is I feel sorry for you

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 30, 2009 1:25 PM   

I do kinda think the ads are a waste of money because they won with such margins.

However, I am not going to sit tight and try not to look too angry. These people are so recklessly incompetent, and the only remedy is to throw them out.

Oh, and more cowbell.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 30, 2009 1:59 PM   

How can this be hurting the Democratic Party? The Democratic Party already has many of its members voting NO along with the Republicans on Reform and the Public Option and against Party values. Ads or no Ads. And against the wishes of their own constituents to boot.

How can it possibly be worse than that?

Are they saying if the ads stop, the ones voting NO might reconsider? How? Why?

No. Just double down on the ads and let the chips fall where they may.

I've already given twice myself. Time to rob the kitty again.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 30, 2009 2:10 PM   

Howzabout some ads demanding that Ben Nelson vote for cloture on the coming Senate health bill votes? IMHO, Nelson is the biggest fly in the ointment at this point.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on