NYT: Earl Blumenauer and the Frustrated Left
Kari Chisholm
On Sunday, the New York Times did a long feature piece on Congressman Earl Blumenauer and his fellow congressional progressives, described as frustrated with the pace of change.
Instead of forging ahead, Mr. Blumenauer, 61, finds himself fighting to retain one of the touchstones for liberals this year, a public insurance option in the health care overhaul, and is watching his hopes of curbing global warming grow cold in the Senate. Mr. Blumenauer, a seven-term congressman, is bracing for a tough vote on sending more troops to Afghanistan while he frets about the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay remaining open.“It has been a hard landing for a lot of the people that I represent,” Mr. Blumenauer, referring to his largely liberal constituency, said as he assessed the first months of the Obama administration.
On health care, Blumenauer describes the tough spot that progressives are in:
Mr. Blumenauer strongly favors a public option and in late July was one of more than 60 Democrats who signed a letter to the leadership saying that, essentially, they would not back a final bill without an acceptable public plan. But on health care — as on other domestic issues, global warming and foreign policy — he must weigh whether it makes more sense to take what he can get as opposed to standing firm and perhaps seeing the overall effort collapse.“It would be very hard for me to do,” Mr. Blumenauer said of voting for a final health care overhaul without a public plan. “But if it gets to the point where the choice is doing some things that will make a significant difference without a public option or letting the whole thing die, that too would be hard.”
So, who is to blame for the slower pace of change? Does Blumenauer blame Obama?
Mr. Blumenauer, a member of the tax-writing and climate change committees with a devotion to trying to improve the livability of American cities, said he did not think Mr. Obama had shifted his ideological stance since his election and did not blame the president for the problems slowing the liberal agenda. He said he saw a combination of factors — the troubled economy, the sheer scope of the nation’s problems and an unexpected level of Republican opposition — as the culprits. ...And though some of his preferred legislative approaches might be stalled or fall victim to compromise, Mr. Blumenauer said he believed that Mr. Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress would ultimately be successful in advancing a liberal agenda on the major issues.
“We are going to be working on climate, on health care, on the economy for every minute of the next two Congresses and beyond,” he said. “Will the public be patient enough? Will the political process hold together?
“This is not going to be easy,” he said, “but I think we are seeing a process that makes me actually optimistic, even though it is not exactly like I would have liked.”
Read the rest of the NYT story. There's also a five-minute companion video from the NYT, which is worth watching.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
2:09 p.m.
Oct 19, '09
[Full disclosure: My firm built Earl Blumenauer's campaign website, but I speak only for myself.]
2:39 p.m.
Oct 19, '09
And hyperbolic comments that the President has sold us out in 5.. 4.. 3..
Oct 19, '09
"...while he frets about the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay remaining open."
Oh please.
Oct 19, '09
Posted by: lestatdelc | Oct 19, 2009 2:39:09 PM
And hyperbolic comments that the President has sold us out in 5.. 4.. 3..
I don't know, at this point, that progressives are particularly interested in finger pointing. The point was that we are frustrated by the pace of change. You sayin' you're satisfied with it?
Oct 19, '09
Earl really hits the nail on the head. The only value that the Democratic Party holds onto is getting re-elected, and doing that by embracing Republican ideals rather than supporting the ideals of traditional Democrats. The Democratic Party today is really the Moderate Republican Party. As a traditional Democrat, the Democratic Party does represent my views, I would not do anything to support it.
I voted for Democrats in the last election in hopes that it would put an end to the Republicans leading the country. It didn't work.
Oct 19, '09
It's true. Many of us are far to the left of Obama, but I agree that Congress, particularly the Senate, is certainly not making it any easier. Obama's aides also undermine him. But then when I hear Obama I feel that he is more liberal than his actions would otherwise indicate. God help us when something gets to the Supreme Court. I am very concerned at their potential derailment of anything liberal. Well, we will have to keep up the pressure and keep the faith.
Oct 19, '09
There is also a full interview (30+ minutes)that appears to be uncut/edited. Interesting format for the Times.
Is Oregon a good representative of where things are at with the Democratic Party across the country? Independents are the folks to watch.
And young/first time voters. How are we going to keep their turnout up in the next election?
Oct 19, '09
Without a public option we won't achieve lasting long term results. It will be very easy for the small gains in the bill to be squeezed to nothing as time goes on. Health insurance will die the death of 1000 cuts. And without a decisive number of voters in a public program, there will be no obstacle to doing so. Power in numbers.
Cash strapped states won't be able to maintain coverage for low-income uninsured. Oregon tried that route and now look where we are. Already we are leaving out 17 million.
Wyden is fighting for this and clearly believes it is the best we can get and we should take it. I appreciate his commitment to getting something and he clearly hopes he can get something better in there, but unless a public option is part of reconciliation, this bill is not going to do the job.
This isn't academic for those of us who have no insurance and little hope of affording anything decent. And it is life and death to some. Why why why can't the US have a modern effective health care system. What good is government anyway if it can't provide the most basic of public goods? The employment based system may have started as a great improvement - now it is a major block to equality. Tell Wyden to keep fighting for more. if Democrats roll over now they deserve to lose next time and probably will.
Oct 19, '09
The problem is in the senate, where there are a lot of self-identified Democrats who in actuality are not on our team. Between corrupt big-square-state potentates like Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, and Kent Conrad, and the cracker barrel containing Blanche Lincoln and Marie Landrieu, and the business whores like Carper and Lieberman, and other rotten apples I can't think of at the moment, there is a huge barrier to overcome. Not to mention wet-noodle leadership from Harry Reid. I rather hope that Lincoln and Reid lose in 2010, and we pick up compensating seats in NH and OH or elsewhere. Durban or Schumer are in line to be Majority Leader, either one would be a vast improvement.
Oct 19, '09
Steve, I agree completely with your assessment of Reid. Progressives specifically and Democrats in general are being done a massive disservice with him at the helm. I'd love to see a Majority Leader who would use the stick once in awhile.
Oct 19, '09
No, the problem is that Obama doesn't have the first idea who Lyndon Johnson was or why he was successful. The second aspect is that Obama doesn't like to play hardball, especially against traitorous whores like the ones you list. He shits on progressives and announces that actual good ideas like single-payer are off the table going in, meanwhile, having given up any semblance of leverage, he puts Rahm to work trying to kiss GOP ass instead by going against the base who elected him.
If Obama wants to have any majority at all in January 2011, he needs to get tough on REPUBLICANS and DINOs instead of on people like Howard Dean.
The correct answer to all questions of the form "But how would we pay for (good progressive idea that's being obliterated by Kristol-Rove-Faux News and the Blue Dogs)" is "The same way we paid to bail out the banks and that we're keeping massive armies in the field in Iraq, Vietghanistan, and 105 other countries. Except this time we're going to be a better-off country for having (gotten the parasites out of health care, rebuilt the railroads, stopped funding biofuel nonsense, etc.)
Obama better wise up quick and realize that no health care bill is better than this monstrosity beloved of Big Pharma and the insurance companies into whose dungeons we're being sold. He's still got time to turn to the country and say "You know what, we tried to put together a bill the GOP should have loved, and they still shit on me and you voters. OK, that's it -- we're going to put together a bill that lets every state set up a universal single-payer system, and all the blue states are going to provide health care for their people. The Red states are free to enjoy getting bled and gang raped by the insurance mafia."
Oct 20, '09
I didn't make this up but it's a good one.
The Daughter is doing new math and asks the Dad for help-
Dad what is the difference between actuality and potentiality?
Dad thinks and says - OK first go ask your Mother if she would sleep with Brad Pitt for $1 million- Then go ask your Brother if he would sleep with Brad Pitt for $1 million and come back and let me know what they say.
The Daughter is puzzled but goes ahead-
Mom would you sleep with Brad Pitt for $1 Million?
Mom says- Don't tell your Father but sleep with Brad Pitt for $1 Million? Sure I'd sleep with Brad Pitt for $1 million.
Daughter is shocked! She goes to Brother- would you sleep with Brad Pitt for $1 Million?
Brother says- Well that's not really my thing but sleep with Brad Pitt for $1 Million? Sure I'd sleep with Brad Pitt for $1 million.
Daughter is shocked and goes to Dad- I can't believe it Father I thought they cared about us- they both said they would do it! But what's the point?
Father says well you see potentially we are sitting on $2 million, but actually we live with two whores.
See potentially it's really great, actually they are a bunch of whores.
(Don't get me wrong- Earl B. is alright in my book- a good Congressman with good life-time record.)
Oct 20, '09
Blumenauer is the latest to be caught in that space between what Obama says and what Obama does. Most of us who voted for Obama will be caught in that space before his term is out. It's still better than the alternative, but it isn't the change we hoped for, either. The wing nuts are still running the show.
Oct 20, '09
Isn't the current frustration Earl and the New York Times describe exactly what Steve Novick once predicted on Blue Oregon? It was an accurate prediction, but was turned into a 30-second attack cartoon.
I'm sorry that happened, Mr. Novick, wherever you are. I still like Obama (and Merkley), but you were right then and now.
Oct 20, '09
Hey Earl, have you read this Tomgram, "Three Cheers for the War Dividend?"
http://is.gd/4sIwS
That's where the money's going . . .
Oct 20, '09
The question for Obama vis a vis foot dragging would be "whose administration is it"? Interior, Defense...are those his policies? A case in point would be the recent Franken ammendment to the 2010 Defese Appropriations Bill, barring Federal contracts from going to contractors require their employees to use binding arbitration to resolve criminal complaints. Because of the number of rapes and assaults that were involved, it was popularly called the "Anti-Rape Ammendment". 30 white, male Republican Senators stood in a block to oppose it. While that has gotten press, what of the following, sent to the Congress by the Administration, the day it passed?
"The DoD opposes the proposed amendment, The Department of Defense, the prime contractor, and higher tier subcontractors may not be in a position to know about such things. Enforcement would be problematic, especially in cases where privity of contract does not exist between parties within the supply chain that supports a contract".
3:04 p.m.
Oct 20, '09
"Posted by: Lord Beaverbrook | Oct 19, 2009 7:24:28 PM I don't know, at this point, that progressives are particularly interested in finger pointing."
You must never read TPM or Daily Kos, where the Surm und Drang for months has been how Obama is selling out the left and Rahm is evil incarnate, walking the halls of D.C.
Oct 21, '09
Yeah, well, I limit "progressive" to people doing something, and don't count talk as behavior. Valid point, and disappointing, nonetheless. What can I say? You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
The point was that Earl ain't doin' it.
So, what special browser do rw and you use to see my posts? The <semiotics> tag is completely effective in hiding posts from Dems. Never see a word I write! (And proud of it, too).
(There's some English grammar minutiae. Do you use two ee's for nee, with men, even though that's feminine?)
Oct 21, '09
Duh. All "real" tags get eaten. The tag was < semiotics >.
<hr/>