
The SEIU was supposed to join AARP and pro-reform organizations this morning in urging an end to the filibuster of the Senate health care bill. But they didn't show.
It turns out that they're not so sure they want to give the bill their implicit endorsement.
"We were supposed to do a press conference this morning with AARP, etc. around supporting the cloture vote," says an SEIU official. "We decided yesterday that it would be imprudent."
"Tonight, we're holding an emergency meeting with our executive board...to at least start the discussion of how we are to proceed," the official said. "It's a come to Jesus moment."
By what the official insists is a complete coincidence, the AFL-CIO is holding a similar meeting.
An official with AFL says the group's executive council is weighing the pros, cons, and unknowns in the Senate bill, as they determine their official position. The council could ultimately "oppose, support, or be neutral [to]" the bill.
The basic issue is this: Both groups are well aware that the bill lacks crucial elements that they want (chiefly a public option), and contains elements that they strongly oppose (chiefly, the excise tax on generous health insurance policies). And at the same time, the groups don't know how the bill will change after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid passes his manager's amendment.
As such, the groups agreed separately to do what they always do in such circumstances: leave the final call to the executive boards.
No decisions are expected tonight, given that the manager's amendment is still being crafted. And though it seems unlikely that major labor organizations will actively oppose this bill, this is a pretty clear sign that they're not exactly happy with how things have shaken out in the upper chamber.
Late update: Sam Stein has more on this.
Steve LaBonne
December 16, 2009 12:54 PM
Such ingratitude! Look at everything the Democrats have done, since they regained power, to reward labor, their most important source of ground troops! There's- well, there's- umm- surely there must be something...
Good luck winning election with lots of corporate cash but no activists and totally unmotivated voters, Rahm.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 16, 2009 12:58 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
word!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
December 16, 2009 1:05 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Good luck winning election with lots of corporate cash but no activists and totally unmotivated voters, Rahm.
This is precisely what the Democratic Party will face in 11 months.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
December 16, 2009 1:09 PM in reply to CT Voter
But they'll blame the fiasco on progressives, of course. The mainstream Dem bloggers (eg. Yglesias) have already started that drumbeat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
December 16, 2009 1:51 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
The mainstream Dem bloggers (eg. Yglesias) have already started that drumbeat....
....ably assisted by Politico, with support from the MSM.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 1:56 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
The White House is the problem. More specifically, the president is the problem. It seems they have decided that progressives are expendable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ickyma
December 16, 2009 12:55 PM
Funny... I was just wondering what Labor had to say about all this...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matt in so dak
December 16, 2009 12:58 PM
Amen, Steve. Both houses of Congress and the White House and still nothing.
Guantanamo, FISA, Cap and Trade, Health Care, Government Transparency, Jobs Bill, Dick Cheney war crimes trial, DOMA, Iraq, Afghanistan, Card Check. Things I thought I might get for Xmas,
Jack sh!t. What Obama actually got me.
Anyone but Obama 2012
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 16, 2009 2:40 PM in reply to matt in so dak
Better idea: supply 5-6 progressive Senators and see what happens. Whoever got the idea of counting Joe Lieberman as a Democrat and then claiming that 60 'Democratic' Senators couldn't hack it was brilliant. Maybe same goes for Ben Nelson.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
December 16, 2009 1:22 PM
Labor should vigorously oppose this corporate lobbyists dream bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
December 16, 2009 1:22 PM
Democrats might not need progressive votes in order to get elected/re-elected, but they need Progressives energy in order to get Moderates motivated and to the polls.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
December 16, 2009 1:53 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
....but they need Progressives energy in order to get Moderates motivated and to the polls.
So which is it -- they do or don't need Progressives?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 1:59 PM in reply to Schmed
They absolutely DO need progressives. They seem to think they can triangulate themselves into success. Hmmm. Where have I seen THAT before? When we insist on fighting the last war we almost always lose the current one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
December 16, 2009 2:17 PM in reply to Schmed
They don't need progressive votes because it's a rather small number comparatively, but they do need progressive energy to motivate the rest of the party to the polls.
Rahm sees progressives as a small fringe group that they can thumb their nose at because their votes will be there, and even if they're not they're too small a number to matter. However if their energy isn't there the Dems will have a much tougher time rallying moderate voters to the polls.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 2:48 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Rahm's decision to stab progressives in the back is even stupider when you consider that what progressives want is much closer to the mainstream than what the Democratic centrist, i.e., the DLC, want for the country. For instance, the public option -- which is cast as a "progressive" item -- remains overwhelmingly popular. Rahm Emmanuel is living in the past and Obama has joined him there. Hey, Bozos! The 90s are long gone! Triangulation is no longer necessary. Wake the fuck up!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
izzatxeaux
December 16, 2009 1:26 PM
thanks Brian.
when the House passed their bill, AFL-CIO issued a polite golf clap - and that version had no excise tax or triggers and included a PO - and now they have to think about their response to this very Labor unfriendly monstrosity ? ayfkm ?
do they actually think it's best to keep their powder dry in hopes of EFCA in the spring ? who in the world thinks this Congress is gonna pass EFCA ?!?!?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
androcles
December 16, 2009 2:33 PM in reply to izzatxeaux
Who in the world thinks that this President is going to push Congress to pass EFCA -- or much of anything else worth passing?
He is turning out to be all talk and no action. No guts. A lot of hot air but no fire. All I hate to say it, but Hilary was right -- "Just words"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 1:53 PM
Someone with courage! Quick! Attack him!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
December 16, 2009 2:59 PM
You know, they probably could get away with stabbing progressives in the back. But stabbing LABOR in the back? Not so much. They'd better take this warning shot seriously. Labor leaders have been extraordinarily patient, but it would be a very big mistake to think their patience is infinite.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 16, 2009 3:10 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
I think it's arrogance. They assume that Progressives and Labor have nowhere to go.
Progressive Party now! Howard Dean seems a suitable inaugural leader. And health care reform is a nice platform to build a party on. (The Democrats did that once, remember?)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kenneth Thomas
December 16, 2009 5:04 PM in reply to wbgonne
I have often thought this. I'm not sure I buy it, but things are pretty sickening right now. It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court rejected the argument to a right to "fusion" voting, as exists in New York state. It killed the New Party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
androcles
December 16, 2009 4:28 PM
One factor glaringly unmentioned in TPM -- the vote on drug imports. The adminstration can throw progressives and labor under the bus, but can't say "no" to Joe or to Big Pharma. Or the banks. or the generals....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?