Harkin: I Will Vote Against PO But I Am PO Supporter

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 12:48:59 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

One reason to have an up or down vote on the public option is to clear the brush of people like Tom Harkin. Jon Walker reports:

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) spent most of the year claiming he was a champion of the public option. Now that there is a possibility of getting a public option with a simple majority using reconciliation, Harkin has made clear that he will actively work to kill the public option, while tying himself in incoherent, illogical knots trying to justify his actions–while still trying to claim he supports the public option.

As Walker demonstrates, a vote for a public option amendment will not threaten anything. Harkin shows yet again again that he is not the sharpest knife in the drawer AND has trouble with the truth. At least for me, that is my realistic goal for up or down vote on the public option --smoke out the fakers, like Tom Harkin.

Speaking for me only

< Will Conrad Use The CBO To Kill The Health Bills? | PA-Sen: Specter Leads Toomey In Latest Q-Poll >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Harkin: I Will Vote Against PO But I Am PO Supporter | 39 comments (39 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The problem (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 02:04:34 PM EST

The problem with an up or down vote on a PO is much like an up or down vote in a flier's bill of rights for 26 inch wide seats, free cocktails, and three feet or so of legroom. Those three features are all quite popular but most folks fly coach.

Umm (none / 0) (#34)
by beowulf on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 10:12:47 PM EST

That's because big seats, free booze and extra legroom would cost the airlines more (and they'd pass the cost onto fliers).

A public option saves money. In fact, the more robust it is, the bigger the cost savings. Cutting out private insurers is more analogous to buying plane tickets without tacking on travel agent commissions.

Which would be no-brainer unless we were burdened with a president foolish enough to promise that if you're happy with your current travel agent you can keep them.


A public option saves money. (none / 0) (#36)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 07:32:39 AM EST

Is that why Medicare spending is growing at an unsustainable rate?


: that's like saying (none / 0) (#37)
by CST on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 09:12:03 AM EST

airline tickets are growing at an unsustainable rate. But people still have to fly (get health care).
A public option is still coach compared to private insurance. Where spending is growing at an even higher unsustainable rate.

Harkin would not vote against (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by MKS on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 05:04:39 PM EST

the public option if it were a close vote....

If you get to 40, I think you get Harkin onboard.

I'm sick of all of them (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 09:06:06 PM EST

I can't work up enough interest in their latest B.S. to even spit. People are broke, people are broken, people are sick......whatever man...my personality isn't one where I can deal with this kind of bull for extremely long periods of time and actually give a chit about any of them anymore.

I think it's more likely (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 01:10:39 PM EST

that he's taking the brunt for the House, where it's still not clear HTF this is going to pass--let alone with a PO. But the reason is not of much consequence.

First off... (none / 0) (#2)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 01:18:41 PM EST

...I'll take a Harkin over a Grassley (or stupid over evil) any freakin' day of the week.

Second, we finally got Mark "Which Way is the Wind Blowing" Udall to make a stand.

Statement from Sen. Mark Udall's office (CO):
"Senator Udall shares President Obama's over-arching priority of enacting meaningful and comprehensive health reform that will increase quality and access and put our system on a sustainable track by lowering costs for small businesses, taxpayers, and American families. As part of reform, he continues to feel that inclusion of a public option to go head-to-head with private insurers could play a significant role in bringing down costs and offering more affordable options to Coloradans. He thinks it's important that such a plan - like the one approved in the House bill - negotiate reimbursement rates while competing on a level playing field with the private sector, and if such a plan comes up for a vote under the reconciliation process, he would vote for it."

Not sure (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 02:02:47 PM EST

why this is a Harkin v Grassley thing for you.

Not everything is about an upcoming election.


Really? Sigh... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 02:21:12 PM EST

Each State is "represented" by two (2) Senators. Iowa is represented by Harkin and Grassley. One is much more preferable than the other in every aspect.

Not about "upcoming elections" at all, rather the quality of representation for the people in the State of Iowa.


Grassely is terrible (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 02:22:51 PM EST

And Harkin is dim and not truthful.

If this is not about Grassley and Harkin for you, we would not need to discuss Grassley.

Have it your way though.


: Maybe he can have another (none / 0) (#28)
by Salo on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 08:11:25 PM EST

Steak Fry or whatever teh hell it was that he staged in the primaries.

Whatever (none / 0) (#26)
by Salo on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 08:09:07 PM EST

The Democratic voters got punked. Now eff off back to OFA.


Harkin is one of the few true progressives (none / 0) (#3)
by Farmboy on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 01:37:40 PM EST

Whatever is being reported over on Norquist's blog, I'd take it with a grain of salt.

It is from The Hill (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 02:02:10 PM EST

and is consistent with Harkin's statements in the past.

I have never been a big Harkin fan myself - he is pretty dumb imo.


not the only source (none / 0) (#5)
by kempis on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 02:02:21 PM EST

Google Harkin and news and you'll find several sources quoting him.

Here's one.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/84325-harkin-fears-reviving-public-option-could-kil l-whole-health-bill

My question is this: who owns Harkin?

I always thought he was a progressive, too. But I don't see how a progressive can oppose the public option.


He doesn't oppose the PO in any way (none / 0) (#12)
by Farmboy on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 02:24:00 PM EST

What he has consistently said is that a) he fears they can't get 51 votes right now, and b) he fears that introducing the PO intro things right now will keep anything from passing.

There's a difference between what you want (I'd like my Mom to not need a walker) and reality (she's 89 years old and lucky not to be in a wheelchair).

The author of the Hill article took Harkin's statements from the recent MSNBC interview where he said that if the House sends "a reconciliation bill that does not have the public option in there" he was afraid adding it on the Senate side would kill it. He then concluded with "We are not giving up on it [the public option]". The Hill turned that into: Harkin is against the public option. And that specious talking point is echoed across central blogdonia.


That's not what he said (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 02:27:31 PM EST

He said he would vote AGAINST the PO, ostensibly, he said, because it would threaten the Senate health bill.

But if you had put your blinders aside for a moment, you would realize that Harkin is stupid or lying - since an amendment on the PO would threaten nothing.

But have it your way, Harkin is brilliant and honest as the day is long.

Most of the rest of us know the exact oppositie is true - Harkin is stupid and lying.


I didn't call him brilliant or honest - (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Farmboy on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 02:37:50 PM EST

those were your words. What I did was something called research. It's where facts are gathered, and then used to develop a hypothesis.

What you are repeatedly doing regarding Harkin is substituting disparagement for a reasoned argument.


: What facts? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 03:01:26 PM EST

You gave no facts at all.

Neither stupid no lying (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by RonK Seattle on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 09:23:53 PM EST

If a sidecar comes to the Senate (either as House legislative product, or negotiated agreement backed by bankable House votes) with the PO, and Senate moves to add a PO (voiding the agreement and whip count) he would of course vote against it. That's all he said in the interview with Big Ed on MXNBC.

If if comes to the Senate with a PO (which presumes House/Senate leadership agreement has secured the votes in the Senate), he votes for it - that goes without saying.

Given that he's in the room where the counting (on both houses) is done, he would know whereof he speaks - and since he bears responsibility for constructing a viable agreement backed by viable majorities in both houses, he is wise to forbear adding stress to a potential point of disagreement on both sides.


You know a pol is lying when they (none / 0) (#27)
by Salo on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 08:10:35 PM EST

talk gibberish. The biggest tell with Bush was the times he was cogent. It was like, my god he really means it this time!


Will this help bring around the Village? (none / 0) (#8)
by lilburro on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 02:15:40 PM EST

Wyden & Casey would vote for House PO in reconciliation. Or just Ezra?

Does this bring the count to 32?

33 with Reid (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 02:16:56 PM EST

17 to go.


I wish (none / 0) (#14)
by lilburro on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 02:29:29 PM EST

there was a comprehensive ongoing list out there. Do you know if there is a count somewhere?


PCCC has one (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 02:30:55 PM EST

: Oh there we go (none / 0) (#19)
by lilburro on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 03:02:35 PM EST

I just assumed PCCC had letter signatures listed. But they have the statements made by Senators too.

gibberish (none / 0) (#17)
by mm on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 02:57:51 PM EST

SCHULTZ: $1.8 trillion is what he voted for when it came to the Bush tax

cuts. That`s half of what health care reform would be in this country.

Plus, over 10 years, the CBO scores it as saving money.

Now, Senator--Tom, we`re friends now, OK?

HARKIN: Always have been, always will be.

SCHULTZ: My man, I need you to sign this public option letter. What is it

going to--if the public option comes up for a vote for reconciliation,

would you vote yes, Senator Harkin?

HARKIN: Look, Ed, you`re talking to a guy who is for a single payer

system.

SCHULTZ: Yes.

HARKIN: And I`m for a public option, always have been. But I know that

Speaker Pelosi said yesterday, I guess, on one of the talk shows, that it`s

off the table, simply because of the vote arrangement that we have to do.

She has to count votes in the House side. So we`ve got a deal with this

very delicately.

And I always say this, Ed--you know, to Adam HARKIN and others like that,

God bless you. I appreciate what you`re doing. You`re on the right course

in terms of pushing for the public option.

This bill is not the Ten Commandments, Ed, as you`ve heard me say many

times, carved in stone for all eternity. This is a bill.

We pass laws around here. And then when we do, we come back and we amend

them and we change them.

I`ll tell you this--if the public option is not in this bill--and it

looks like it probably won`t be because of the votes--that means we`ll be

back on it again, maybe even this year, maybe next year. But I`m telling

you, it`s going to be coming back again and again and again. We are not

giving up on it.

SCHULTZ: But why do I sense a "yes" out of you? If it were to come to the

floor, you would vote yes for the public option, would you not?

HARKIN: Ed, I`ll tell you this straightforward. Not if it meant that it

would sink the whole health care reform bill.

There`s a lot of other stuff in there I care very deeply about--getting

rid of all of these pre-existing conditions, insurance rescinding these

things, covering 30 million people, giving tax credits to low income so

they can buy insurance, getting more competition out there. These are very

important things to have for our country, and so I have to weigh all of

that.

And if we have a bill sent to us from the House, a reconciliation bill that

does not have the public option in there, then if we were to do that, if we

were to add it here, that would sink the whole bill. And I don`t want to

sink this bill. I want to get this bill passed. I want it on Obama`s desk

and have him sign it.

SCHULTZ: Yes. We all do, Senator. But if it were just a single issue and

a single reconciliation attempt at a public option, you would vote for

that, wouldn`t you?

HARKIN: Ed, not if it doomed the entire bill.

SCHULTZ: OK.

HARKIN: I`ve got to be honest with you. Not if it doomed the entire bill.

SCHULTZ: OK. But in this case it might not be that scenario.

HARKIN: Well, I don`t know. Well, Ed, let`s see what the House sends us.

HARKIN: And we`re working that out right now. As the chairman of the

committee, I`m involved in these talks. The Speaker is--I`ll tell you,

she is doing a great job.

HARKIN: But she has to get 218 votes, Ed. And this is a very delicate

balancing trick to make sure we get all these votes, and --

SCHULTZ: Well, they had a public option in the House bill before. Why

would they not have the votes for it this time?

HARKIN: Well, because there are other things happening because the Senate

bill is there and they have to pass the Senate bill. There are certain

things in the Senate bill that cannot be fixed in reconciliation, and some

House members are peeling off.

It's gibberish, all right (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by shoephone on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 03:10:39 PM EST

Harkin is proving himself to be a total wimp on this one. But hey, his buddy the Prez -- who is now pushing phony-a$$ tort reform as part of the final bill! -- has made it clear that gibberish is the lingua franca of post-partisan democracy, so what's a poor guy to do?

It's tough out there for a pol.


I get what he is saying (none / 0) (#25)
by MKS on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 05:14:04 PM EST

The House might not have the votes for a public option this time around because they will lose the Stupak votes, etc.

So, if the Senate passes the public option but the House does not, it is futile.

I don't know if I buy what Harkin is saying but he is coherent here....even if wrong.

It seems the reasoning is thus: The House may not want to twist arms to get 216 (the new number I think due to current vacancies)votes for PO in the sidecar if they think the Senate would not accept that result.

But if the Senators are merely signing a letter indicating that they would support or vote for the public option, and you get 50 of them on record saying that, the House Democrats should be fine with that....How that would hurt the House? They can either accept or reject the public option--but with 50 Senators on record as for it, it would be easier to get the votes in the House.....Well, maybe Harkin is just out of it on this after all....


: He's caught a dose of the Bushes. (none / 0) (#29)
by Salo on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 08:15:52 PM EST

: Don't know (none / 0) (#35)
by mm on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 07:12:42 AM EST

"How that would hurt the House? They can either accept or reject the public option--but with 50 Senators on record as for it, it would be easier to get the votes in the House....."
Obviously, you and I have no understanding of how democracy works.

Gibberish only to those with no understanding ... (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by RonK Seattle on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 09:12:02 PM EST

... of democracy (which is neither as simple as you imagine, nor as simple would like it to be).


Looking at the (none / 0) (#20)
by lilburro on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 03:08:36 PM EST

PCCC list (h/t BTD), I'm wondering who's next...

I'm thinking Cantwell, Dodd, Dorgan, Feingold, Kohl (he is not checked off on that list, but OpenLeft has a citizen call diary suggesting he "would not be closed" to PO through reconciliation) and possibly Tester.

That would get you up to 39. Carper and Bill Nelson (not included in my count) previously voted for Schumer's PO. True, under different circumstances...

Do call Kohl (none / 0) (#22)
by Cream City on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 03:26:44 PM EST

as he's far from the gutsiest guy in the Senate, but he is the richest member and may not be running for re-election, so he can't be bought either way by the White House or the (scary) Wisconsin business interests.

And do call Feingold. He has said in his town halls that the people hardly call, they hardly write, as his staff does tally 'em all. And he needs to be reminded of his repeated PO pledge -- and that he will have to face a lot of constituents on this, as he has an interesting election ahead.


Feingold is up (none / 0) (#23)
by MKS on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 05:03:16 PM EST

for re-election this time. He has had a couple of nailbiters....

He may not want to go out on a limb if they just cut it off after him....But he should be there if they need his vote.


Feingold is down (none / 0) (#33)
by Cream City on Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 09:43:58 PM EST

if Thompson does come in . . . he continues to play the cutesie game that makes Favre look decisive.

I still doubt that Tommy will give up his lucrative board seats, but he is doing his part for the party by maxing the uncertainty of it all for Feingold.


: The new "Favre Rule" for overtime (none / 0) (#38)
by MKS on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 12:20:49 PM EST

Apparently the NFL is thinking about changing the rules for overtime in the event of a tie. Right now, it is sudden death--the first team to score wins, which means teams that lose the coin toss might not get a chance in overtime if their defense does not prevent a field goal.
With Favre, and the Minnesota loss to New Orleans in overtime, Favre did not get a chance on offense in overtime....
So, the NFL is contemplating imposing the "Favre Rule" which would allow a team at least one possession in overtime, so long as the other team has not scored a touchdown. In other words, we are not going let happen to anyone else what happened to poor Bret Favre--a loss by a cheap, first-possession field goal in overtime....

Senator Harkin is a Pussycrat (none / 0) (#39)
by john horse on Wed Mar 03, 2010 at 04:34:25 PM EST

Regarding Senator Harkin, if I can borrow a line from the Wizard of Oz:

What makes a King out of a slave?
Courage!
What makes the flag on the mast to wave?
Courage!
What makes the muskrat guard his musk?
Courage!
What have they got that Senator Harkin ain't got?
Courage!

I would like to thank BTD for adding to my taxonomy of Democrats. Heretofore, I've classifed Democrats as Blue Dogs and Populists. Now we can add a new classification - those Democrats who are too timid to actually stand for what they believe even when they are in a position to be able to enact their beliefs. I call Democrats like Harkin "Pussycrats" or "Pussies" for short.

Maybe this timidity comes from years of being bullied by Republicans back when the Republicans were in the majority but I just don't get it. When you are in the majority and those in the minority party flip you the bird, that is when you ignore trying to work together and use your power to start ramming things down their throat. Its amazing how that makes the minority party more willing to work with you in a bipartisan manner.