NH-02: Kuster Campaign Status Update

by: Colin Van Ostern

Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 10:51:18 AM EST

MEMORANDUM
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: Colin Van Ostern, Campaign Manager
DATE: January 6, 2009
___________________________________

In 2009, Kuster for Congress demonstrated (1) real, sustained fundraising strength, (2) broad and unparalleled grassroots support across the district and the full political spectrum, and (3) leadership in discussing the issues facing our state and country in the 2010 elections. Ann McLane Kuster's deep ties around the state, her experience, and her knowledge and passion on the issues has allowed us to lay an unusually strong foundation for this campaign as we move into 2010.

Here is a short memo to update you on our progress.

We Know About Carol. What About the Others?

by: BurtCohen

Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 14:11:37 PM EST

What about the others? Anyone know? That information would be appreciated.

New CD 1 Congressional candidate throws hat into...craigslist

by: susanthe

Mon Dec 21, 2009 at 11:49:23 AM EST

Pass the Healthcare Bill

by: JimC

Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 16:40:56 PM EST

Just do it.

Yesterday, I wrote that a bad bill is the worst possible outcome. I've changed my mind.

Even Howard Dean, speaking on On Point on WBUR yesterday, said the Senate bill does some good things. OK, then. Let's take it.

I'm not crazy about the mandate; it's an imperfect solution. Some have said it will be a windfall for insurance companies. But you know what? Health insurance is not all that profitable. It's a business that looks like a cash cow from the outside - like, say, a ski resort, when all you see is person after person shelling out nontrivial cash to ride down a hill. But then you look a little closer and consider all the administrative costs and all the regulatory issues and all the payouts, and it's a lot less profitable. The real profit drivers at insurance companies are their investment portfolios. Are insurance CEOs overpaid? Of course. Are they more overpaid than automotive or technology CEOs? A harder question.

So then the question is, do we accept an imperfect bill? Yes, for a simple reason: We've been here before, and we failed. We've got a far better chance of a more perfect bill later (we will never have a perfect bill) if we have an imperfect bill now. If we have no bill, we reinforce the invincibility of the status quo. We send a message to the GOP: we have no will and no power. You can stop us. We will defeat ourselves without your help.

It's not single-payer or a public option. It's not what I wanted. It might not be what anybody wanted. But it's something. Have we wasted 2009, or did we get something?

Health care is one-sixth of the American economy. We all know the stats: 37th in the world in terms of care; perhaps home to the greatest specialists; tops in cost; somewhere in the range of 45 million uninsured Americans; long waits for appointments. The system is broken. Of all the metaphors that come to mind, all imperfect in their way, the one I think fits best is urban renewal. If we try and fix everything at once, we will fail. Can we fix the broken windows? Yes, we can. And we should.

I will take a small success over total failure any day. Maybe this bill will turn out to be a total failure - but we don't know that yet. Either we go into next year with something done that can be tweaked, or something not done.

The cliché is, "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." I hate that expression, because it is nearly always used to beat someone with high aspirations over the head. I hate half measures and incrementalism. Sometimes I hate the U.S. Senate. But there is one thing I hate more than all of those combined: inertia. A willingness to give up, and just not try to fix things because they're too hard.

Fix what you can. Move forward. Something is always better than nothing.

What Is the Goal Again?

by: JimC

Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 09:43:32 AM EST

Hey, this reminds me of the time the Republicans agreed to fund a jobs bill as part of their Social Security privatization legislation.

Oh wait ... that didn't happen. There I go again.

To win the elusive 60th vote, Mr. Reid on Wednesday stepped up efforts to work out a compromise restricting the use of federal money for insurance covering abortion.

Those efforts focused, in particular, on Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, an opponent of abortion who said he had not decided how he would vote on the legislation.

Aides to Mr. Nelson said he was studying a proposal on abortion that he received on Wednesday from Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, who had been asked by Democratic leaders to try to draft a compromise.

Casey is also anti-choice, but apparently less anti-choice than Nelson, who (to his credit) states elsewhere in that story that his vote is "not for sale" and that he is not being bribed wooed with federal money going to Nebraska.

The main part of this story was the "Medicare for all" amendment by Bernie Sanders, which failed thanks to GOP demands (and Democratic capitulation) that it come with a full budget. That is not all that surprising, given that single-payer has been pretty much outside this debate from the start. But what's surprising, if it's true, is that Democrats are negotiating against their own beliefs.

That's just not the way to do it.

Why are we negotiating when we don't know what we're negotiating for? Democrats seems to fear the notion of Republicans killing the bill -- and that is mildly rational, considering the election message it sends, not to mention the impact on subsequent legislation.

But a far worse outcome is a bad bill. Do we have a good bill, or do we not? No one has convinced me either way.

GOP votes for another recession

by: Michael Marsh

Sat Dec 12, 2009 at 08:27:33 AM EST

Making It Official - DeJoie Running for Congress

by: johndejoie

Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 14:00:58 PM EST

I have been listening to people across the district for the past several months. Their message has been clear; if they have jobs, they are worried about keeping them. If they don't have jobs, they are worried about providing for their families. Everyone is worried about healthcare; what Congress will pass and how it will change their lives.

I am running for Congress because I share these fears, and I know what it takes to be the voice that working families need.

I have been fighting these fights in the New Hampshire House for the past 4 terms (7+ years). In fact, I have been fighting for working families my entire adult life: as a social worker, a firefigher and a State Representative.

As a State Representative, I have been successful in passing legislation both as a member of the minority and the majority. More than 30% of the bills I have submitted have been signed into law. I have been involved with several important pieces of healthcare legislation including Michelle's Law and the NH Rx Advantage, that I co-sponsored with Senator Larsen.

I share the growing concerns that Americans have about our involvement in Afghanistan.

The one thing that you will find about me is that I am not afraid to take a clear stance on the issues. Some will agree with me, some will disagree, but I look forward to a full discussion of the issues that are on the minds of voters across the district.

I will not reprint my enire statement here, but I invite you to read the press release and my full statement.

Read the Press Release Here

Read Full Text of Announcement Here

See the campaign video
 

Trouble in Paradise

by: JimC

Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 09:58:43 AM EST

The Washington Post says Congress is mad at Obama, but reading the story, a lot of it seems to come down to Tim Geithner.

Even Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a friend of the administration, suggested that Geithner had been inconsistent in addressing China's practice of keeping its currency low against the dollar.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Just two points:

1. The timing seems self-serving, to put it mildly, with 2010 looming.

2. If Congress wants to do more on the economy, it can.

On Paying For Immoral Things, Or, Is Stupak On To Something?

by: fake consultant

Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 06:20:12 AM EST

The Amendment, which is apparently intended to respond to conservative Democrats' concerns that too many women were voting for the Party in recent elections, was attached to the House's version of healthcare reform legislation that was voted out of the House this weekend.

The goal is to limit women's access to reproductive medicine services, particularly abortions; this based on the concept that citizens of good conscience shouldn't have their tax dollars used to fund activities they find morally repugnant.

At first blush, I was on the mild end of the wailing and gnashing spectrum myself...but having taken a day to mull the thing over, I'm starting to think that maybe we should take a look at the thinking behind this...and I'm also starting to think that, properly applied, Stupak's logic deserves a more important place in our own vision of how a progressive government might work.

It's Political Judo Day today, Gentle Reader, and by the time we're done here it's entirely possible that you'll see Stupak's logic in a whole new light.

On Using Mr. Bullhorn, Or, DC Health Summit Thursday: Come Say Hi...Loudly

by: fake consultant

Wed Oct 21, 2009 at 07:27:37 AM EDT

Part of the reason that opposition was so rabid was because health care interests were spending millions upon millions of dollars doing...well, doing whatever the opposite of giving a distemper shot to the angry mob might be, anyway.

So wouldn't it be great if all the CEOs of all those health care interests were to gather at one time and place so you could, shall we say, gently express your own thoughts regarding the issues of reform and public options?

By an amazing coincidence, that's exactly what's going to happen Thursday in Washington, DC, as the Patient Centered Primary Care Cooperative (PCPCC) holds its Annual Summit.

Follow along, and I'll tell you everything you need to know.

On Learning To Love Homegrown, Or, Baucus' Fundraising Considered

by: fake consultant

Thu Oct 08, 2009 at 23:59:06 PM EDT

We have seen a Democratic Senator propose a policy that would put people in jail for not buying health insurance and a Democratic President who has taken numerous public beatings from those on the left side of the fence for his inability to ram something through a group of people...and yes, folks, the entendre was intentional.

But most of all, we've been asking ourselves: "why would Democratic Members of Congress who will eventually want us to vote for them vote against something that nearly all voting Democrats are inclined to vote for?"

Today's conversation attempts to answer that question by looking at exactly how money and influence flow through a key politician, Montana's Senator Max Baucus-and in doing so, we examine some ugly political realities that have to be resolved before we can hope to convince certain Members of Congress to vote for what their constituents actually want when it really counts.

Your Media at Work

by: JimC

Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 07:02:51 AM EDT

During their September 10 editions, the three evening network news programs cumulatively devoted more coverage to Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst during President Obama's September 9 joint address to Congress on health reform -- in which Wilson claimed President Obama lied when he said "our reform efforts" would not "insure illegal immigrants" -- than they allotted to the speech itself. Moreover, while ABC's Jake Tapper explicitly stated that "the president's reforms" would not "apply to illegal immigrants" and NBC's Kelly O'Donnell said that "the bill, as it's written now, is explicit saying that illegal immigrants will not get any health care benefits in reform," the CBS Evening News did not attempt to fact-check Wilson's interjection.

More at http://mediamatters.org/resear...

This is the sort of meta-item you can really make yourself crazy about. (Was this a deliberate strategy? Why did the media enable it? Etc., etc.)

I guess I'll just focus on the most basic questions:

1. Why would any news producer allow coverage of Wilson to be anything more than a footnote?

2. Would the coverage be the same if Bush was president and Wilson was a Democrat? (Dems say "It wouldn't have happened," and history favors us on that.)

But, I have to be honest: If Wilson were a Democrat, I'd be annoyed by the coverage and would say let's move on.

As is, I'm annoyed by the coverage. Let's move on.

On Understanding Your Market, Or, Mr. Obama, We Need To Talk

by: fake consultant

Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 11:20:34 AM EDT

What are you gonna do? Do we follow the traditional Democratic Party legislative process of passing...something...at any cost, assuming the entire time that the Left and the Netroots will "go along with the program", or is there a risk that the calculus doesn't work as well today as it did in 1994 and 1996?

Well, lucky for you, I'm a fake consultant, and I know a few things about your "target market", so before you answer that question...we need to talk.

Dear Mr. President

by: JimC

Tue Sep 08, 2009 at 22:58:42 PM EDT

Thank you for all that you've done. Thank you for raising the hopes of this country, and running a campaign that truly was different, and truly changed America.

But it didn't change Washington, did it? That's a problem for me, but it's a bigger problem for you, because you have to live and work there. Congress changed a lot, but it didn't change enough. All we know is that we can do better, we want to to do better, and we have to do better.

But Congress -- its bread is differently buttered. The safest thing for Congress to do is nothing. No, scratch that -- the safest thing is a lot of sound and fury that doesn't just signify nothing, it does nothing. Sometimes it does nothing very expensively (a feat, that). Does anyone really think Congress wants to mess around with one-sixth of the American economy?

And into this, you step. You're not just president, you're the only politician in the country that people want to listen to. Big speech on Wednesday. You must be working hard at saying just the right thing.

Want my suggestion? Tear the speech up.

Go out there and just talk. You've said some good things about a public option, you "support it" -- do you want it?  Do you think it's the solution? How could you think that, and not say it?

Your gift is your burden: your Jeffersonian rhetoric makes people hear what they want to hear. Nobody should be surprised that you're a moderate of sorts, but you are (unless I'm tone deaf) a Democrat's Democrat in a way that Max Baucus will never understand. You think the government should be on the side of the powerless, not the powerful. The credit card industry learned this a couple of months ago.

I was inching toward your candidacy when I read Dreams from My Father. You and I have nothing in common, except we're relatively close in age, about four years' difference. But that book should be required reading for political reporters because it tells someone how to hear you. That's what it told me, anyway: here is someone who understands the world the way I do. So when you say we need to look at new ways of doing things, I may not agree with the particular approach, but I trust you to do it the way I would do it, first doing no harm.

In March 2008 or so, when it became apparent that you would be our nominee, I felt a shudder. It was weird, handing the keys to a first-term senator who had given one good speech at the convention. Maybe no weirder than handing them to the governor of Arkansas, but that was a different time. A safe path lay ahead of us last year, and we took the risk. We believed. That's really remarkable, when you consider we were beaten like dogs for so long, and it's largely your doing.

Please don't disappoint us. That's your phrase, in The Audacity of Hope (which doesn't hold a candle to Dreams, but it's pretty good). You were describing the path politicians take and the looks they get from those who knew them when. The looks say: Please don't disappoint us.

So many times, I've wanted to walk away from the Democratic Party. Sure, the Republicans were always worse, but the Democrats in Congress were just pathetic. Except Ted Kennedy (and sometimes Barney Frank), who always brought me back. In the darkest days, Kennedy would do something every six months or so that would make me proud of my party and my country. Pretty soon, I'm going to get another shudder when it really hits me that Ted Kennedy is gone. Maybe you've already had that.

They tried to say the lesson of Ted Kennedy's life is compromise. No -- it's persistence. Fall down seven times, get up eight. Don't fight for a bad bill. If the deck is stacked and only a bad bill can be had, put something good into it. Make a good bill better. Be prepared to wait for opportunities.

And, create them. You already have.

We wanted change; you brought it. You told us to hope; we are hoping. If you honestly oppose a public option, I'll respect that, but if you support it and give up on it, I won't.

Please don't disappoint us. Please don't disappoint yourself.

Thank you.

Salon: All Healthcare Is Local

by: JimC

Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 06:56:14 AM EDT

It's easier to figure out why the other Democrats involved in the negotiations appear to be willing to fold on the public option: The situation is quite different back home for them. [Senator Kent] Conrad's North Dakota has a far smaller share of uninsured residents than [Senator Jeff Bingaman's] New Mexico, with only 11.2 percent lacking any coverage. Montana [home of Max Baucus], with 16.4 percent uninsured, isn't much worse off. Both of those states have more people covered by the government insurance that's already very popular: Medicare. The entitlement for seniors covers 13.4 percent of Montanans and 12.5 percent of North Dakotans. And huge shares of both of those two rural states are covered by individual insurance -- 10.3 percent in North Dakota, the most in the country, and 8.1 percent in Montana, the third-most. North Dakota also mandates a fairly high level of coverage for individual policies, making them a good option especially for the state's many self-employed farmers.

But wait: If we inflate 16.4% to our national population of 300 million, we get 49.2 million, awfully close to the widely used figure of 47 million.

So even if we buy Madden's argument, isn't Baucus in the same legislative boat as the rest of us?

On Disarmament, Or, How Congressman Larsen Made A "Town Hall" Work

by: fake consultant

Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 08:03:41 AM EDT

I attended one of these meetings, and based on what I saw I'm here to tell you that it is possible to hold an event that features none of the images previously described.

Instead, what I say was an event where people asked their questions, the Congressman answered-and from time to time the angry members of the audience got their shout on, too...but not in a way that was able to ever take control of the venue.

There were helpful lessons that can be applied by others who want to have these meetings, and today's conversation examines what can be done to make them work for you, too.

Taking Pains

by: JimC

Sun Aug 02, 2009 at 06:38:18 AM EDT

People consider me rather relaxed, an easy person to get along with (with some exceptions, of course). The plain fact is, if you have that reputation, people will try to take advantage of you. And they will succeed sometimes, because willingness to compromise tends to lose to unwillingness to compromise.

I'm usually aware that the forceful person is getting their way. So the compromise becomes one with myself -- do I stomp my feet and insist I'm right, or is the easier path the greater good?

Sometimes the relationship improves. People can and do change, and who knows, maybe they just needed someone else to negotiate a bit to trust them. In other cases, the relationship deteriorates. It can't be improved, it has to be reset, or ended.

So do I show this person I have teeth too? Do I escalate every dispute, as they tend to do, until it seems like a battle for civilization itself? The answer is almost always no. I am who I am for many reasons, but some of those reasons are deliberate choices. I pick my battles, and trying to convince a jerk I am a worthy opponent is almost never a battle worth fighting. I do not need more opponents, the world provides plenty of them. I need more friends -- trustworthy, rational people.

Which brings me to our US Congress.

Today's Washington Post:

Reid told reporters Tuesday that he might be willing to compromise on points of policy if it meant getting the 60 votes needed to turn back GOP procedural objections. The Senate Democratic caucus now stands at 60 members, but two members --  Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.) and  Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) -- have battled serious illness, requiring Reid to win support from at least two Republicans to make up for their absence.

"I have a responsibility to get a bill on the Senate floor that will get 60 votes," Reid said. "That's my number one responsibility, and there are times when I have to set aside my personal preferences for the good of the Senate and I think the country."

Ted Kennedy, whose condition might be worse than we've heard, would crawl on broken glass to vote for this -- if it's a good bill.

As House negotiators continued to work late Tuesday evening on breaking an impasse on their version of the bill, the bipartisan Finance Committee negotiators emerged from another meeting insisting that no final decisions had been made about the contents of the legislation. But as details trickled out, none of the components appeared ready-made for GOP opposition. Negotiators are scrubbing every provision for unintended consequences that could negatively affect small businesses or middle-class families, both of which Republicans say could be harmed by the other bills moving through Congress.

"What we do obviously would be important to our Republican conference," said  Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), a member of the GOP team, along with  Sens. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the ranking Republican on the finance panel, and Mike Enzi (Wyo.), the senior Republican on the health committee. Snowe said the primary goal of the negotiations is a bill that can draw Republican votes.

"I think it might resonate, frankly, with our colleagues," Snowe said of the emerging compromise measure. "We want the basis for a bipartisan agreement, and I think that could be the launching pad for that resolution."

Does Snowe believe what she's saying? Let's assume she is for the moment, despite the obvious red flags.

Senate Republican leaders are taking a wary approach to the bipartisan negotiations, and unless pressed by reporters, rarely note they are taking place. They continue to lambaste the two Democratic bills as job-killers that would inflate health-care costs.

At a news conference Tuesday,  Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took pains to note that GOP negotiators brief him daily. But he sidestepped questions about whether he embraces their work. "There's not a plan that I've seen that people can support on a bipartisan basis," he said.

What's the result of all this? Not all bad, but not great:

The finance panel's legislation is expected to include incentives for employers to provide health insurance for their workers, rather than a more punitive coverage mandate. The committee is also likely to endorse narrowly targeted tax increases, rejecting a controversial tax surcharge on wealthy households that the House adopted and limits on deductions for upper-income taxpayers that Obama is seeking.

GOP negotiators rejected from the outset the kind of government-run insurance plan that Obama and most Democrats are pushing for in an attempt to inject the health-insurance market with pricing competition. Instead, the committee would create coverage cooperatives modeled after rural electricity providers.

Mr. President?

Obama has encouraged the finance panel's effort, praising it as the potential foundation for the bipartisan outcome he is seeking. But he flashed his discontent with the process during a question-and-answer session sponsored by AARP. "Sometimes I get a little frustrated, because this is one of those situations where it's so obvious that the system we have isn't working well for too many people, and that we could be doing better," Obama said Tuesday.

Let's recap:

- Democratic negotiators began by compromising with themselves. They decided not to fight for a public option.
- Rather than hold this as a hole card, they didn't make the GOP fight for it. They came into the meeting with the goal of getting GOP votes because they are unwilling to take responsibility for the bill.
- Democratic leaders outside the negotiations talk about a "foundation."
- Republican leaders outside the negotiations are perfectly willing to throw the negotiators under a bus.

This relationship is dysfunctional. The Democratic spirit of cooperation, opportunity for all, etc. simply cannot accommodate itself to dealing with people who are not willing to compromise. And our so-called tough guys, like Rahm Emanuel -- as others have noted -- fight out of fear. They don't want to hand the GOP an issue.

Net result? The GOP wins. The country gets a watered-down bill, and the GOP has stopped a public option. Enter thousands of stories saying, "The Democrats couldn't win with both Houses, 60 votes in the Senate, and the presidency." The GOP sees its poll numbers rise. There's no change, why vote Democratic?

Sometimes we deserve the pain. We have inflicted it on ourselves.

Dr. Dean and Frist on Charlie Rose

by: GreyMike

Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 12:52:54 PM EDT

Especially interesting discussion re expanded Medicare as a public option.

Health Care: Why Am I So Stoopid?

by: GreyMike

Mon Jul 27, 2009 at 13:27:47 PM EDT

1. Any current public health discussions are based mainly on the interests of for-profit health care businesses (and to a lesser extent, the public option, which they hate).

2. No matter what they say in public, the primary goal of these businesses is profit, not health care.

3. Maximizing profit means generating maximum revenue for minimum expense, no matter how you cut it.

4. The real customers in the system are the investors, not people subscribing for services.

5. Those subscribers ("members", "clients", "patients", whatever) are simply a collection of assets and liabilities; or cost and revenue centers, if you prefer. People using services are liabilities, those that pay in and do not use them are assets. That's the way it works.

6. These businesses and their champions are never going to volunteer to significantly reduce their profitability for the public good, nor does Congress have the collective will to legislate a significant reduction or remove the profit motive entirely. Too much influence has been bought and paid for on both sides of the aisle; it just won't happen.

7. Whatever the result, the President has made certain that it will be Congress' Plan, not Obama's Plan (he's NOT stoopid). He learned that from watching Bill & Hill.

8. In our lifetimes, we are unlikely to ever have what is required for actual universal health care: a single payer system.

So, what am I missing here? How can the current direction of health care legislation possibly result in something that will actually work?

Please, someone enlighten me...

This Is Not a Game

by: JimC

Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 06:49:42 AM EDT

Today's Post:

On health care, the poll, conducted by telephone Wednesday through Saturday, found that a majority of Americans (54 percent) approve of the outlines of the legislation now heading toward floor action. The measure would institute new individual and employer insurance mandates and create a government-run plan to compete with private insurers. Its costs would be paid in part through new taxes on high-income earners.

There are sharp differences in support for this basic package based on income, as well as a deep divide along party lines. Three-quarters of Democrats back the plan, as do nearly six in 10 independents. More than three-quarters of Republicans are opposed. About two-thirds of those with household incomes below $50,000 favor the plan, and a slim majority (52 percent) of those with higher incomes are against it. The income divide is even starker among independents.

That's the story -- a developing, complex debate. But here is the headline:

Poll Shows Obama Slipping on Key Issues
Approval Rating on Health Care Falls Below 50 Percent

By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 20, 2009

Heading into a critical period in the debate over health-care reform, public approval of President Obama's stewardship on the issue has dropped below the 50 percent threshold for the first time, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Another tidbit:

At the same time, there is no slackening in public desire for Obama to keep pressing for action on the major issues of the economy, health care and the deficit. Majorities think he is either doing the right amount or should put greater emphasis on each of these issues.

So this poll, which certainly has bad news in it (a sharp drop in independent voters' approval of Obama on healthcare), is clearly a mixed bag. The headline is poorly chosen.

These days, with pajama-wearing bloggers nipping at their heels, shouldn't journalists celebrate complexity? After all, they have the time to describe it. Newspaper readers are the serious readers, right?

I don't want to say the Post is empowering the GOP here, because the GOP has long shown a knack for declaring itself empowered by any development. But here's hoping my party remembers how many votes it has, and what it was elected to do.

That's hoping, as in HOPE.