Early this afternoon, just prior to Mark Warner leaving for a trip to Israel, I had a chance to chat with him on the phone for about 45 minutes. Part of the call was a chance for me to get some stuff off my chest, so I started off by telling Senator Warner about the bubbling discontent and frustration among progressive activists (myself included) with Congress. For starters, I read Warner two tweets by Ben Tribbett.*"I will never vote for anyone who doesn't eventually support the public option this year. NEVER."
*"Prediction: If Dems in Congress fail to pass public option Boucher, Connolly, Perriello and Nye lose in '10, Webb in '12 and Warner in '14."
I also read Senator Warner part of an email I received the other day from a leading Virginia progressive blogger, who believes that "activists are [angry]" because "they see Dems in Congress just pissing everything away." That’s partly why, according to this blogger, the "numbers [of supporters] at Deeds events are down."
In addition, I read Warner part of an email from yet another Virginia progressive blogger (my god, those bloggers are everywhere! LOL) who urged him to "choose the citizens of Virginia over the special interests" and who charged that "what [Warner] is supporting is not that much different from the status quo, nor is it the improvement we need."
I mentioned that Public Policy Polling's latest poll indicated an 18-point "enthusiasm gap" in favor of Virginia Republicans over Virginia Democrats, and told Senator Warner I thought we needed to turn that around ASAP or we're in deep trouble this November. I mentioned Mudcat Saunders' comment the other day that if now isn't the time for economic populism, there never will be a time. I expressed my belief that Democrats are looking to get excited by bold, progressive solutions to problems, by real "change," by aggressive action along the lines of what Democrats campaigned on in 2006 and 2008 – health care (preferably with a robust public option), energy, climate change, education, foreign policy, civil liberties for everyone, etc. Essentially, I said, this is our chance to make real progress in America, so let’s not blow it.
I noted that many progressive activists and bloggers are not big fans of bipartisanship, certainly not just for bipartisanship’s sake (as Warner is sometimes perceived to favor). In fact, given the say-no-to-everything Republicans and the fact that Democrats control both houses of Congress (plus the White House), many progressive activists wonder whether there's a point to bipartisanship at all. This feeling is reinforced by the reaction Barack Obama received when he reached out his hand at the start of his administration and tried work with Congressional Republicans -- not a single Republican vote in the House of Representatives for the economic recovery package and just a few for climate/energy legislation.
Unfortunately, as I said to Mark Warner, today's GOP is nothing like the Rockefeller/John Chafee Republican Party we both grew up with in Connecticut during the 1970s. To the contrary, many of today’s leading Republicans (e.g., Sarah Palin and her bizarre, paranoid rantings about President Obama’s so-called “death panel” that’s going to decide if her Downs Syndrome baby lives or dies - WTF?!?) would have been considered a bunch of John Birch Society nutjobs (and rightfully so) back then. Exhibit A: the unruly, even violent, mobs - spurred on by their "leaders" in the right-wing media and on the Hill - at town hall meetings these days.
Despite all this, Senator Warner appears committed to at least attempting bipartisanship (what he likes to call "radical centrism"), at least with a few "moderate" Republicans like Olympia Snowe (ME), Susan Collins (ME), Charles Grassley (IA), and Michael Enzi (WY). Warner makes a strong case for getting a health care reform bill that's at leaest somewhat bipartisan so it can't easily be dismissed as "Democratic health care reform." Also, Warner wants health care reform that has enough bipartisan buy-in that it actually lasts. With regard to the public option, Warner seemed open to it along with other options, like the "health care cooperatives" concept. Actually, Warner seemed a bit surprised that the public option had become such a big issue the past few months, as he didn't recall it being discussed much during the presidential campaign.
Warner makes a strong case that getting something through on health care or climate change, even if it isn't perfect, is better than getting nothing done, since if we get something done now we can build on it and improve it as the years go by. Warner pointed out that there were people on the left who weren't thrilled with Social Security when it was proposed by FDR because it didn't contain everything they wanted, but we got it passed and then moved forward from there. To take another example, Warner believes that what matters on climate change is establishing the core principle that carbon pollution needs to cost something and sending a clear signal to the market along these lines. If we do that, Warner believes, the market will respond with a surge of clean tech investment, green jobs, etc.
More broadly, Warner makes the case that the Obama administration and Congress have already accomplished a great deal, with lots more to do considering the many serious problems we inherited from the Bush administration. For instance, Warner believes the economy is beginning to turn around, that we essentially averted Great Depression Part II, that Congress passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In addition, Warner is hopeful that we’ll get health care reform passed after Labor Day and that (he seems a bit less confident here) we'll also get clean energy/climate change legislation and modernized financial regulation before the end of 2009.
We briefly discussed the recent Business Week story, which talked about "UnitedHealth's relationship with Democratic Senator Mark R. Warner of Virginia" and claimed – among other things – that "UnitedHealth has periodically served as a valuable extension of Warner's office, providing research and analysis to support his initiatives." Warner refuted this, as did his spokesman Kevin Hall (in writing). Here’s Hall’s written statement:
The [Business Week] article makes untrue and unsubstantiated claims about the origins of Senator Warner's end-of-life legislation, which we crafted over several months in consultation with medical, academic and religious leaders from across Virginia and elsewhere.In the context of health care, Senator Warner emphasized the importance of containing costs. Warner raised the example of Medicare Part D, enacted in 2003. The problem with Medicare Part D is that there were no real cost limits imposed, and the fears expressed at the time that drug prices would rise have largely come to pass. Senator Warner seems focused on making sure that this situation doesn’t happen again and, instead, that we "bend the cost curve" for health care downwards.
We also consulted with more than a dozen non-profit, non-partisan organizations including AARP, the National Alzheimer's Foundation, the National Palliative Care Association and others. The insurers United Health Care, Aetna and Kaiser were contacted because each of them has conducted limited pilot programs involving the expanded counseling and support resources that are envisioned in our legislation, and they were able to provide us with quantifiable data from these pilot programs that demonstrated increased quality-of-life and customer satisfaction among patients and families who had received earlier access to end-of-life resources and counseling services.
Senator Warner's views on health care reform will continue to be informed by what he's hearing from Virginians, and by his 20 years of experience as a private sector employer, a philanthropist who cofounded the Virginia Health Care Foundation for the uninsured and underinsured, as a governor who administered a state Medicaid program. His interest in providing access to expanded end-of-life counseling and other resources is driven by his personal experience as a son whose mother is battling late-stage Alzheimer's while receiving care 24/7 at home from family caregivers.
In the end, I came away feeling that Senator Warner may not be a super-progressive but that he largely "gets it," and probably even shares many of our broad goals. Having said that, we certainly need to keep the pressure - carrots and sticks - on him and on all our representatives in Congress to do the right thing (on health care, climate change, etc.) in the coming weeks and months. Warner expects no less, noting that if you can't take criticism, politics is the wrong business for you. Boy, is that ever true these days!
