As Bowers notes, it’s funny to watch the punditocracy live through blogger Ground Hog day with Democratic leadership:

You aren’t going to get the leadership to change course by telling them to starting knocking some heads together, ala Bill Press or Michael Tomasky. Virtually the entire progressive blogosphere has spent six years writing those articles, and it hasn’t done a damn thing to change the "coddle the conservatives" strategy that determines virtually everything that all members of the Democratic leadership do.

[]

Long story short: under its current leaders, the Democratic Party leadership is not just going to change course after twenty-five years and start attacking conservative Democrats. They are never going to voluntarily join us. Instead, it is time to force the leadership’s hand with a direct effort to deny them something they want very badly unless they give us something that they want very badly. In the case of health care reform, that means denying them health care legislation unless they give us a public option in that legislation.

Harry Reid is now making noise about standing up to Max Baucus.  While it’s certainly more encouraging than his "don’t expect too much" speech, here’s a tip for those thinking that their righteous insistence will move Reid: it’s SOP in his "road to the sellout" tour.  Such strong statements preceded the big el-foldo’s on FISA and the supplemental.  Remember cots in the Senate?  Shutting down Chris Dodd?  What he’s really saying is "of course I’ll love you in the morning, baby."  

Don’t be chumps.

If Reid is serious, will he block Baucus from being a conferee?  Of course not.  His trick is to say one thing, then use Senate procedure to do another.  As Bowers notes, they will never whip from the inside.  The only way move members of Congress is from the outside, to remind them of their campaign promises on healthcare and the 76% of the country who hate insurance companies and favor a public plan. 

Members of Congress are first and foremost politicians who play dependable roles within a political machine.  If left to their own devices, they’ll default to the influence of that power structure over the interests of their constituents if the two are at odds.  If they feel that the actions they are taking as part of that machine jeopardize their standing with their constituents, their sense of self-preservation kicks in and they become candidates for office once again.

The 40 Vote Strategy

The fact is, 40 Democratic votes in the House can stop any health care bill from getting through if  the Republicans vote against it in a block.  And 76% of the country is in favor of a public plan. So we find ourselves in a situation where progressives, in progressive districts, have influence over progressive members of congress, who have the power to determine what goes into a health care bill — if they will use it.

Harry Reid is just walking back his blunder from a few days ago.  He didn’t want to encounter the same speeding truck that flattened Rahm Emanuel yesterday. He’s one of many who read about the collapse of Obama’s numbers among Democrats in Ohio yesterday and figured it was time to start throwing around some political fiery rhetoric.

The trick is to get these health care lions on the record right now, committed by name (and not under the umbrella of a "caucus" they might not even agree with), to a firm definition of what they will vote against.  Many think that the HCAN principles we’ve asked people to agree to are too soft, but the big risk right now is that Kent Conrad’s co-op plan is gaining strength in the Senate and in the White House, who will try to sell it as a "public plan."  

That definition was drawn up to explicitly to get people to commit to vote against the Conrad plan.  Available day one (no triggers), nationwide (no state balkanization), answerable to Congress and the voters (as opposed to answerable to states that lack bargaining power at the federal level).

None of this stops those 40 members from agreeing to commit to vote against anything that isn’t stronger.  Part of the problem we’re seeing is that as the target shifts and new ideas develop to screw the public, people are concerned that this definition does not address those things, too.  I understand that, and they’re right, but if you’ve got 7 people already committed to definition "x" and suddenly "y" enters the picture, you’ve got to go back and add "y" to "x" and ask the 7 if they’re okay with that before you change the definition for the other 33, and it’s a mess.  And then "y" doesn’t even become a factor, and you’ve just been chasing yourself.

The more important thing is to organize the 40 (and hopefully 60 and 80) around the principle that progressives will stand together to oppose the current push to screw us, and that having done so they can use that bargaining power to strengthen the bill as it moves through the committees and markup and onto the floor, and then into conference.  With 76% of America at their backs and those in their communities watching, that’s a powerful chip to have.

Harry Reid’s rhetoric on its own is meaningless to anyone who has been watching politics with any diligence for the past few years.  It’s going to become invested with meaning by people working on the outside.

John Conyers has been a healthcare hero for his entire career.  He has asked NYCEve and me to speak before Democratic House and staff members today at 3pm on the Hill. 

I’ll be talking about the whip count project, which they know about because people here got on the phones and let their members of Congress know that health care is something that is important to them, and that fiery rhetoric that ultimately succumbs to the demands of a political machine just won’t cut it this time.

Don’t be bought off with convincing smoke signals. Keep those calls coming, because they’re working.