Rep Payne: Obama Makes War OK

[davidswanson]

Congressman Payne: I Won't Oppose War Money Because Obama's President

Congressman Donald Payne (D., N.J.) has voted against war funding bills for years. Last summer he was one of 32 heroes to vote No under intense pressure from the White House to vote Yes. When I asked him a couple of years ago to sign onto impeaching Bush he immediately said "Sure!" and he did it.

Today I asked him if he would commit to voting No on the next $33 billion for war. I asked him privately, just after he'd given a long speech to a Progressive Democrats of America conference in New Jersey, a speech about how much he opposes the wars.

Payne told me that he didn't want to commit to voting No on the next "emergency war supplemental" because Obama is president, echoing Jan Schakowsky's comments last June when she made a similar reversal.

"Congressman Payne," I said, "aren't the bombs the same? Isn't the dying the same?" He agreed and told me I was preaching to the choir.

"And is the only difference that a different person is president?" I asked. "Yes," he replied.

When I had prefaced my question with praising him for standing strong last June, I had referenced the major promises and threats that other congressmembers had reported receiving from the White House. Payne said he had experienced the same. Yet somehow he had resisted, but is unsure about resisting further.

Earlier in the day, another Democratic congressman from New Jersey, Frank Pallone, had spoken to the PDA conference, and both PDA's national director Tim Carpenter and I had asked him publicly to commit to voting No on the war money.

I thanked Pallone for voting No on war supplementals in 2004 and 2005 and expressed disappointment that he had voted Yes last June. He refused to commit to voting No, with the excuse that something good might be attached to the war money. Yet he had voted No in the past, despite the fact that good hard-to-oppose measures were always applied as lipstick on these bills.

Was Pallone's real thinking that he wanted to obey the president? I can't say for sure, but I can say that he took a lot of questions from PDA members about his positions, and he tended to answer by explaining what Obama's positions are. And I can say that Pallone raised lots of rightwing reasons for not being stronger on issues like healthcare, and other members of the panel he was part of decisively refuted each point but had no impact on the congressman's position whatsoever.

Joining Pallone on the panel were Carpenter and PDA board member Steve Cobble, Co-Chair of PDA's Healthcare Not Warfare campaign Donna Smith, and the president of the New Jersey Industrial Union Council Ray Stever. They laid out the case and the strategy for shifting our resources from wars to human needs, especially single-payer healthcare.

The conference rooms were packed, and everyone involved was eager to get to work, including a lot of people new to PDA's organizing. Joanne O'Neil and the other leaders of New Jersey PDA were pleased with the conference, but far from satisfied with the positions of the two congress members who attended.

To their credit, however, everyone was focused on lobbying, challenging, and pressuring until their representatives agree to represent the people of New Jersey rather than taking their orders from a president who has three more years in office even if his followers get themselves voted out this November.

I expect more congress members from New Jersey, possibly even Payne and Pallone, to be joining those committed to voting No on the wars they claim to oppose: http://defundwar.org

[midnight]

1. I love this idea of shifting resources from war to healthcare.... Let's do it...

[sandnsea]

2. Okay. So blue dogs are supposed to fall in line

and support their caucus and their president and stop being obstructionists on health care, environment, taxes, jobs, etc.

But progressives are supposed to have a backbone and vote against their president and their caucus, because why?

You either support them all voting their conscience, or you don't. And you can't say every blue dog is just bought off by whatever corporation, or you haven't looked at their specific constituency. Arkansas for instance. Take a look. I'd be surprised if there's one Democrat left in office in that state by 2016.

[alberg]

12. It's not about blind suppport - it's about supporting the Principles of the Democratic Party.

I want to see our elected representatives support:

- health care reform ( including the public option at the least, Medicare expansion to everyone preferred)
- no cuts in benefits for Social Security or Medicare
- protection of US citizens First Amendment rights
- more direct Government action to create jobs and strengthen the economy for the average citizen
- etc.

I don't want our elected representatives to support:

- any continuation of Bush's unconstitutional policies
- additional support for ill advised military operations that are not making us safer
- economic policies that favor the top 5% of the population at the expense of the bottom 95% of the population
- etc.

The labels ("blue dog", "new Democrat", "Moderate", "Progressive" etc.) don't matter to me. What does matter are basic principles and how well or how badly a given Representative supports those principles. If a Representative
is labeled a "Democrat" but votes like a "Republican", then for all practical purposes that Representative is a Republican.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ....

[bertman]

13. Sandnsea, you said "You either support them all voting their conscience, or you don't." Isn't it

a bit odd that their consciences dictated a NO vote on the war when a Republican was President, but now that we have a Democrat in office a YES vote is just fine?

Or maybe you did not read the paragraph above where David Swanson stated that the other Dems who changed their votes were doing so after being threatened and/or rewarded for their YES votes.

Won't it be a wonderful day when the administration is threatening/rewarding Blue Dawg Turds for their votes for a Robust Public Option instead of a war appropriations bill?

[Oceansaway]

3. K&R...n/t

[glitch]

4. Horrible to see such shallow reasoning. You expect more depth from your own side.

I suppose they'll get a clearer path from their constituents.

We really need to stop calling our elected officials "leaders".

[pjt7]

5. Pallone has been very, very weak in

regards to the 9.11 first responders health bill.

It has sat in the health committe he chairs for years & has never been brought up to vote.

I've met with his staff & seen him up close & feel he is spineless.

(Thanks for posting about Rep.Payne, I'll pay more attention to his efforts)

[glitch]

20. There is no excuse for that. Spineless, bought or both? :( nt

[crazyjoe]

6. so are they really "heros for voting NO under intense pressure from the White House to vote Yes" ?

I would say they are weak and spinless, that's about it.

[davidswanson]

16. but

the bombs aren't landing on you

[tabbycat31]

7. I was also there last night

and unfortunately that's some of the political realities of the time. We have to change this from within.

As for Pallone-- he's far from a rightwinger, but his district took a sharp right turn this November, and he's been one of the #1 targets of the teabaggers. Pallone's almost committed to voting against the war. He was very helpful to me yesterday when I mentioned my own health care situation. I don't think the bill is perfect, but I also don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. I'd be one of the uninsured covered by the bill.


ETA it was an absolute pleasure to meet you yesterday.

[Matt Shapiro]

27. Sorry, tabbycat, but I am sick and tired of hearing the "perfect be the enemy of the good" argument.

The bills passed by the House and Senate are NOT "good." They may well help some people, but probably will hurt more people than they help. If you are one of those who will get coverage under the proposed expansion of Medicaid, you will likely be helped, as long as the State (in this case, New Jersey) comes up with its share of Medicaid costs. That is far from certain, given the dire economic straights that most states are in (certainly NJ).

If you will not qualify for Medicaid, even after the expansion, you will not just "get" insurance, you will be REQUIRED to BUY insurance. You may not be able to afford the premiums, co-pays and deductibles of even the least expensive insurance policy made available on the "exchange." Being forced to buy insurance that you can't afford to use so that the insurance company can take 30% off the top is not a good thing.

Referring to Medicare for All, which is what nearly everyone at the meeting yesterday supports, as "The Perfect" diminishes it in a condescending manner. You probably don't mean it that way, but that's the way it comes out. It makes it appear as if single payer advocates live in some kind of ivory tower, and that improved Medicare for All could only happen in a utopian society.

That's just not true. The rest of the industrialized world has universal single payer health care, and it works just fine, costing much less and providing much better health care to the average person.

Actually, improved Medicare for All is the only economically viable solution that would provide real affordable health care to the 45 million uninsured and the 75 million or so under-insured. Done properly, it would eliminate deductibles and co-pays, and would cover all medically needed expenses, including dental, vision (glasses & lenses), Rx, long term care, abortion (including abortion coverage actually lowers the overall cost), etc. It should be paid for by a progressive payroll tax and an income tax surcharge on the very wealthy. Fraud and waste should be reduced to near zero, but vital services like community hospitals should not be underfunded and endangered. The program would pay for itself, and thus be deficit neutral. Health care would be established as a right for everyone, and, as a nation we would end up paying less overall and per person (by eliminating the 30% insurance co "overhead", negotiating best price with pharma, and streamlining care delivery), while getting much better health care and health outcomes for the average American.

You might agree with all this, but think that it is not politically viable, that someone like Congressman Pallone should move to the right in response to attacks by tea-baggers. I respectfully disagree.

The reason the Clinton health plan of the 90s failed when attacked by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries is that the plan was too complex to explain to the American people, while the attacks were very easy to understand (false, but not complicated). The same situation exists today. The House and Senate bills are easy to attack in a simple way, the way the tea-baggers do, even though much of the attack is ridiculous. But because they are so complex, they are very difficult to explain and defend.

Improved Medicare for All, on the other hand, is SIMPLE. It is not only easy to defend and explain, it is something a politician would do well campaigning for and demanding. People respect a pol who stands on principle and who stands up for them. That's what Medicare for All is all about. Congressman Pallone (and President Obama and all the others who claim some progressive credentials) should be shouting from the rooftops that improved Medicare for All was the right way to go from the very beginning. They should admit they made a mistake by allowing the insurance companies and big Pharma to effectively control the health care "reform" agenda. They should start over with a campaign for real health care reform that would work and that people can understand.

And we, as progressives, should be telling them, as forcefully as we can, that this is what they should do, not excusing them for doing the opposite.

Finally, I was at the meeting yesterday as well, and David Swanson, you were fantastic, as is your post here.

[latebloomer]

8. Whoa! Payne's my rep

and he's always voted the right way on everything! Very upsetting. I'll make my small attempt to help him come back around.

[pjt7]

9. latebloomer

My take on Swanson's blog is that Payne voted against the war funding..again & Pallone voted for it.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Payne seems to be the only one sticking to his gun's.

[latebloomer]

11. Yes. but Payne is leaning toward voting for funding in the future

from the OP-

Payne told me that he didn't want to commit to voting No on the next "emergency war supplemental" because Obama is president, echoing Jan Schakowsky's comments last June when she made a similar reversal.

"Congressman Payne," I said, "aren't the bombs the same? Isn't the dying the same?" He agreed and told me I was preaching to the choir.

"And is the only difference that a different person is president?" I asked. "Yes," he replied.

When I had prefaced my question with praising him for standing strong last June, I had referenced the major promises and threats that other congressmembers had reported receiving from the White House. Payne said he had experienced the same. Yet somehow he had resisted, but is unsure about resisting further.

[davidswanson]

17. thanks

let us know

[placton]

10. Thanks for the change, Mr. President. sigh

Now WE can be the war party, eh?

[bertman]

14. Recommend. So the strong-arm tactics are only used when they're dealing with military/war

budgets and not social programs/reforms that can help working Americans. Very interesting indeed.

[Karmadillo]

15. Too bad Obama didn't want to make real health care reform OK.

nt

[avaistheone1]

19. I know.

:(

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Caving, and rationalizing it, is a well practiced art form for politicians.

[choie]

21. and also for some of DU

n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. As the number of born-again-hawks makes apparent.

Now that "our" guys are in charge of the killing it is chic and politically correct to be in favor of it.

[Mari333]

29. exactly..a chickenhawk is a chickenhawk

I dont give a shit what party they are in.

[humbled_opinion]

23. Sad Days...

Our President had an opportunity to be a leader but instead he bowed to the neocons... "Good War" the idea is antithesis to everything I believe. How many children has Obama indiscriminately killed? Truely shameful, I will not support him on this and I have had arguments with many on this forum regarding this very issue. When it comes to the indiscriminate killing of Muslims there is one huge difference between Bush and Obama.... One of them got a nobel Peace Prize and still continues to do it. Which one is worse?

[sulphurdunn]

24. This is good news.

If the President can strong arm some liberal congressmen into support of war funding, he should have no trouble whipping Blue Dog senators into line on public option health care reform.

[davidswanson]

28. how bewildering

right up until you admit to yourself what is publicly known: Obama doesn't want to reform healthcare

[timeforpeace]

25. Spectacular hypocrisy on display.

[johnaries]

26. You really don't get it, do you?

"aren't the bombs the same?" A Glock 9mm is a Glock 9mm, but I trust one in the hands of a policeman much more than I trust one in the hands of a crook and murderer.

It makes all the difference in the world whose finger is on the trigger.

And don't give me that tired old "Obama=Bush" bullshit. That's been disproven time and time again. They are total opposites.

[davidswanson]

30. maybe you didn't understand

i spoke with payne after he finished a long speech denouncing the wars, demanding they end, proposing to shift our spending to human needs

he "opposes" the wars, unlike you

he plays a role in keeping them going, like you

[Mari333]

31. you really think Obama isnt being run by the same fucking corporate bastards

who ran these occupations from the beginning? opposite? Obama is center right. he and a lot of politicians know who butters their bank accounts. and it's corporatists who run these occupations. There is a lot of money to be made from these fucking bullshit wars.