November 11, 2009 09:03 PM UTC

Betsy Winks

• 9 Comments
• by: JO

Or did she blink?

Like many of you I received Pat Waak’s informative CDP Week In Review this week which started with the news that four of Colorado’s five Democratic representatives voted for health care reform (130 words). The second item was Betsy Markey’s statement on her lonely negative vote, explained in 187 words, which included this final sentence: “I remain optimistic that with the House and Senate working together with the Administration, we can achieve a bill that meets the goals of affordability and coverage, improved access, and is also fiscally sustainable in the long-term.”

Having already learned on ColoradoPols that “she did everything she could to pass the bill except vote for it,” we can now take heart that when the final version of health care reform emerges from the Senate-House conference, sometime later this year or next, La Markey will see her way to vote for that much improved, more compromised bill, that will pass The Test(s). To the faithful, I suppose the message was: “I voted against it before I’ll vote for it.” Okay, it didn’t work for Kerry in ’04, but maybe it will work for Markey in ’10.

In the midst of this discussion, several knowledgeable, sophisticated insiders on this site explained to me how naive I am, how little I understand about how to get things done in Congress, how my “purist” attitude reminds them of their own misspent youths, and how ineffective–even counter-productive–strongly held principles are in the world of Winken, Blinken, and Nod. I learned how much I didn’t know: I don’t know what cap and trade means; I learned that the vote for Cap and Trade was “close” (219-212) whereas the vote on health care reform wasn’t (220-215); that criticism of an incumbent is evidence of a political personality defect variously described as “PUMA”–whatever that is meant to imply–and “purism” symbolic of naiveté.  I was advised to “give it up” and to “calm down.”

But the most devastating–crushing, really, though I hate to admit weakness in public–was the ….

…accusation that I don’t know how things are done in Washington, or in politics generally. Forget about the fact that this is a blog, not the Halls of Congress. Act like a politician, even if you aren’t one. Above all, it’s all about compromise; Love Thy Incumbent; look at the final outcome rather than how the representative in question voted; above all else, think about how to stay in office, even that means voting with the Opposition.

Forget about the prospect of voting for this landmark health care reform bill and then running on that bill by spending the next year traversing the district explaining and persuading the bib-overall set why it is a good thing! Naive! How about sending out videos with surrogates to meet with farmers over coffee in La Junta and Julesburg? “Purist!” nonsense! What about rounding up enthusiasm in Fort Collins to counter the criticism that’s bound to come from Fort Morgan? “Impossible!” Should we accept that CD4 comprises people incapable of processing arguments and changing their minds? Is there something about the byproduct of those feedlots in Greeley that has infected the minds of everyone within 100 or so miles from the Kansas or Nebraska border from Wyoming to Oklahoma?

My sense is that this site, and others like it, attracts a variety of posters, as well as people who read but never (or almost never) write anything, either diaries or posts. I’ve seen Representative Jared Polis post here. I’ve read posts from apparent “sock puppets” who appeared to be working directly for certain office-holders or candidates; I’ve read interviews in which the lunch menu got top billing, followed by paragraphs in which quotation marks weren’t needed; I’ve read dozens of posts by people who appear to be campaign volunteers wishing to demonstrate their inside knowledge of how GOTV campaigns work, if not the larger world of persuading ordinary voters. I’ve read posts by professional TV journalists seeking yet another outlet for their Catch of the Day. I’ve also read comments by people who appear to be typing with one hand while holding a bottle of something in the other, or demonstrating that yes, brain stems can direct fingers on a keyboard while the brain is at complete rest.

And I’ve learned a lot about myself. I’m pretentious. I live in an ivory tower. I’m ignorant of politics. I don’t know what Cap and Trade means, or by what margin it passed the House. I’ve learned that a vote for Cap and Trade justifies a vote against Health Care Reform. So there, uninsured sick people!

I would venture to suggest that blogs like this one occupy a certain position in the larger world of politics, a position comparable to Letters to the Editor in newspapers. Like all journalism outlets, blogs are a way of trying to influence how elected representatives vote. They are a voice of people who don’t have paid representatives working out of offices on K Street. They are a way of signaling representatives that their political calculations may or may not go down well back home. And in the immediate context, they are a way of reminding politicians that demands for change represented in the election of Barack Obama (including 49% of the votes in CD4 vs 50% for McCain) haven’t been forgotten, and that votes for the status quo are not acceptable.

As Pat Waak’s newsletter showed, Markey’s negative vote on the health care reform bill–a vote for the status quo–needs explaining, needs justification. The statement she issued struck me as a great big Wink. “I know only too well that America’s health care system is in dire need of reform.” Problem: “It simply does not do enough to cut the health care costs that are crushing our businesses and families.” [Is this Betsy being a “purist,” unwilling to compromise on a bill that is already the result of compromise after compromise? Is that “how to get things done”?] Contrary to popular opinion, “This was not a vote on the idea of health care reform.”‘ Representative Markey (Wink-CO), seeing the issue more clearly than the Speaker and 220 of her colleagues in the House, including four from Colorado, remains optimistic that an acceptable bill will emerge in the future–presumably? (Wink, Wink) one that she will vote for.

My question for the assembled sophisticates and Wise Ones is: Did Betsy wink? Or was that a blink? Is it easier to advocate health care reform by voting against it, or by voting for it? Or both? Stay tuned.

In the larger picture, Colorado is (or isn’t) a state moving from the Red column to the Blue. What’s the best way to hasten that process? Vote with the Democrats and then explain and campaign? Or vote with the Republicans, and then wink?