
The Center for American Progress is the most influential Democratic think tank in Washington. It's president, John Podesta, led the Obama administration's transition effort, and the organization--which provides legislators and politicos everything from policy analysis to messaging and strategy--is tightly linked with the White House and Democratic members of Congress. So it may come as a surprise, that with Democrats on the Hill struggling to find a way out of the health care mess, CAP itself isn't chiming in.
In the days since last week's special election in Massachusetts, which cost Dems their 60th, filibuster-breaking vote in the Senate, TPMDC has tried to answer a simple question: How does CAP, as an institution, think House and Senate Democrats should proceed. We still don't have an answer. Numerous calls to CAP officials over the last several days went unreturned.
Democrats and their allies have no shortage of ideas about how the party should break the logjam. Some say the House should pass the Senate bill, and amend it in a separate bill. Others think they should break the Senate bill into smaller parts and try to pass those individually. One CAP analyst told the Financial Times, "It now looks extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get anything resembling a broad health care bill out of Congress.... In his State of the Union, Obama has to slim down his ambitions. It should be short and simple and focus on jobs."
But there's no indication whatsoever that this is the institution's official position--and the group's silence reflects a growing sense that the Democratic party machinery was unprepared for the Massachusetts fallout, and is still unsure how the year long push for health care reform will play out.
After all, it's not as if CAP is shy about taking official positions on major issues. Just this month, Podesta himself stepped into the controversy over whether Democrats' private health care deliberations should be aired on C-SPAN. (Podesta broke with Democrats and members of his staff to argue that party leaders should broadcast their meetings publicly.)
We may have more clarity soon. Tomorrow, CAP and Podesta will host a roundtable discussion on "the tremendous challenges facing the American economy, job creation, health reform, and the role of the American labor movement in rebuilding a sustainable economy for all working families."
Senior Democrats say the party doesn't have time on its side--they must figure out a way forward quickly. And unfortunately for them, this comes at a time when their go-to messaging and policy people are just as confused as they are.
Indie Pro
January 25, 2010 1:08 PM
It'll be interesting to see where the Center for American Progress aligns itself.
One CAP analyst told the Financial Times, "It now looks extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get anything resembling a broad health care bill out of Congress.... In his State of the Union, Obama has to slim down his ambitions. It should be short and simple and focus on jobs."
will they become a dem establishment mouthpiece, or remain a place for progressives ideas?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 25, 2010 1:11 PM in reply to Indie Pro
They were always an establishment mouthpiece. They don't know what to do next precisely because the MA voters just kicked the establishment's butt. That wasn't part of these geniuses' plan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 25, 2010 1:18 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
I never saw them as an establishment mouthpiece, but I respect your opinion. I'll definitely be watching to see what they say.
Atleast they aren't proclaiming the "pass the Seante bill in the House as is" mantra some are chanting these days.
Democrats therefore have two choices: pass an improved version of the Senate health care bill or abandon the effort altogether.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 25, 2010 1:24 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Oh, I didn't say they were the WORST of the Dem establishment. They're not, by a long shot. But they are very Beltway-wired and pretty incrementalist in their approach.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
carlosinhp
January 25, 2010 4:54 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
yeah they arent the worst, but unfortunately they are sucking up so many of the resources and attention that progressives have/get.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Riesz Fischer
January 25, 2010 1:52 PM in reply to Indie Pro
HELLO-- It's John Podesta. They're totally an establishment mouthpiece.
The only thing progressive about them is the word "Progress" in their name.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 25, 2010 2:11 PM in reply to Riesz Fischer
I had a higher opinion of The Center for American Progress, than of Podesta.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
January 25, 2010 1:19 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Massachusetts voters didn't kick anyone's butt. They rejected a very poor candidate, who refused to campaign hard. The Democrats continue to have a 57 vote majority in the Senate, only one down from their maximum, and the never did have a 60 vote majority. The problem the party faces is that they have always been ambivalent about true health care reform, since that would cut the incomes of some of their supporters, and it would reduce the profits at some corporations in some senator's states. Now, an excuse is available for doing nothing, so the majority of the party is having a hard time convincing the minority of the party to reject that excuse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 25, 2010 1:23 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
Defeating a lousy establishment candidate who endorsed an unpopular establishment health-care proposal IS kicking the establishment's butt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
anna am
January 25, 2010 1:34 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
So Brown's what? A counterculture revolutionary? I'm not sure I follow you to your conclusion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 25, 2010 1:39 PM in reply to anna am
He's merely a nonentity who was the lucky beneficiary of a sit-down strike by many people who otherwise would have voted Dem. He got only modestly more votes than McCain (that margin represents the rather small active element of the protest vote) but Coakley got many fewer than Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 25, 2010 2:26 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Not that I disagree with your general sense, but the fact of the matter is that voter turnout was extraordinarily high for for a special election. The only sector of the MA public that didn't vote in significant numbers were those who don't give a damn about politics at all. People are pissed and scared, a nasty combination that the Democrats across the board totally misread. The majority (independents) swung for Brown because he didn't represent government in suspended animation.
Not having an answer to the people's pain knocked off Coakley, and unless Obama and the rest of the Dems come up with something ACTIVE soon, they're next.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
January 25, 2010 1:39 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Voter surveys show that the voters didn't vote based on Health Care reform, for either candidate. They liked Brown better than Coakley, so they voted for him. See http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2010/01/who-voted-for-brown-in-massachusettsand-why-voters-cannot-oppose-legislation-if-they-dont-understand-it.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 25, 2010 1:45 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
The key word there is "voters", and that's why your analysis is incorrect. Coakley's problem was the people who DIDN'T vote. Again, compare the candidates' vote totals to the Presidential race.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 25, 2010 3:30 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
Exactly right. This constant insistence by tea-baggers and the MSM that Brown's election is some sort of mandate on HCR is pure bullcrap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mike from Arlington
January 25, 2010 1:09 PM
Doesn't Igor Volskey speak for CAP?
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/22/democrats-big-bill/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
izzatxeaux
January 25, 2010 1:26 PM
David -
saw on FB this morning, Darcy Burner is endorsing Senate Bill - saying we need Nelson language to drag Senate Bill across and 'get it done'. believe she is current working as some sort of CAP congressional liason
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/darcy-burner/how-we-can-get-the-health_b_435286.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 25, 2010 1:34 PM in reply to izzatxeaux
just to be clear, she is endorsing the Senate bill with sidecare reconciliation, with the Senate going first.
and the Public Option as well:
Either a public option or a Medicare buy-in can be done through reconciliation. Sen. Harkin claimed 52 Senate votes for the public option over the summer, and it appears it was only Lieberman who killed the Medicare buy-in at the 60-vote threshold.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
January 25, 2010 1:44 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I'm curious about why extending the eligibility age for Medicare is always called a "buy-in". All of us who are covered by Medicare are "buying into it". We pay a portion of our SS benefit to get the coverage. I think just reducing the age of eligibility for Medicare to 55, for example, just means that those people begin paying the same fee that those of us now covered are paying. I suspect some of the opposition to this is based on the erroneous belief that we now get that benefit free - or at least I don't get it free.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
January 25, 2010 1:46 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
Of course I am referring to Medicare Part B, without which in my state, and many others, Medicare is nearly useless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 25, 2010 1:41 PM
I was wondering the same thing. My guess is that someone at the White House has been leaning on them to keep quiet. But I think their silence comes at the cost of their credibility.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
January 25, 2010 2:18 PM
Once again, a /headdesk moment.
As this shit circus has come to town this past week, I've been asking myself over and over: if Democrats and Obama don't have the stones to pass comprehensive health care then why oh why did they start the process in the first place?
How could Obama have completely underestimated the difficulty of passing something (especially when he was supposed to have studied the Clinton experience...)?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
January 26, 2010 1:42 AM in reply to agio
I think he called it "Hope".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 25, 2010 2:29 PM
why oh why did they start the process in the first place?
Because a sham HIR bill is easier to craft than a real jobs bill?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sailormarlowe
January 25, 2010 3:15 PM
Glum's the word. Dems on rapid slide to defeat in 2010 & 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
January 25, 2010 3:15 PM
They have a think tank?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jorge
January 25, 2010 3:32 PM
Brian, FYI on TPM's editing
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/25/830088/-Editing-on-liberal-websites-has-suffered-lately
It's president, John Podesta
There's no apostrophe in the possessive "its."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
January 25, 2010 5:12 PM
He doesn't speak for CAP as a whole, but the blogger Matthew Yglesias seems to support Plan B.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/galston-onward.php
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/do-house-democrats-realize-they-already-voted-for-health-care-reform.php
"What’s baffling to me about the collective health care freakout happening on the Hill right now is that House Democrats don’t quite seem to be grasping the implications of the fact that they already voted for health reform back in November. Whether or not Massachusetts increases your perception of the political threat level a little or a lot, the essence of the matter is that there’s no increase in the threat level that comes from voting “yes” a second time. "
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tpmgary
January 25, 2010 6:14 PM
Is Daschle with CAP? If so, the formula goes, for every one Tom Daschle you spot, there are a thousand other big money lobbyists hiding in the walls.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WNCBlue
January 26, 2010 8:14 AM
CAP AWOL.
OfA AWOL.
Anybody else to add to the list?
Or are they on some sort of secret mission that we'll hear about at the State of the Union speech?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?