The Silent Filibuster: Already in Progress

Jane Hamsher has a must-read post on the culpability of Harry Reid in the possibility that there is a silent filibuster of the public health insurance option. Jane writes:

There are 51 Senators who will vote for a public option, something 77% of the country wants. It would win a majority in a floor vote. We were told that we needed 60 votes in the Caucus so we’d have a filibuster-proof majority — so that the GOP would never block a bill from getting to the floor. The only reason not to put the HELP Committee public option in the Senate bill is because Joe Lieberman and other “ConservaDems” are conducting a silent filibuster — they won’t say it publicly but they’ll say privately that they will vote with the GOP to filibuster the bill.

That means the Democratic caucus will now filibuster itself.

I only have one thing to say: Don’t even fucking think about it. We were told we had to suck up all manner of corporate whoredom for that 60 vote filibuster proof majority — that’s what we supposedly got in exchange for letting Lieberman have his committee chair, right? Except now I guess he gets all the power and the perks just because you like him, with none of the responsibility to stick with the caucus on procedural votes.

Sadly it already looks like Reid is going to not stand up to the silent filibuster.  What makes me say this? Well, yesterday following the passage of the Senate Finance bill, Reid’s office committed to keeping Olympia Snowe involved in the process by giving her a spot on the negotiating team that will merge the SFC and HELP bills. From the NYT Prescriptions blog:

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid, said that Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, the lone Republican on the Finance Committee to vote in favor of the bill, would be invited to future sessions. And Mr. Manley said the Democratic leader was prepared to go to substantial lengths to keep Ms. Snowe’s support.

“He is prepared to do what he can to keep her on board while putting together a bill that can get the 60 votes necessary to overcome a Republican filibuster,” Mr. Manley said.

But here’s the thing: if Reid were stopping the silent filibuster of the public option, he would not need Snowe’s vote to “overcome a Republican filibuster.” He would need Snowe’s vote if and only if he has to overcome a Democratic filibuster.

Snowe is only necessary when Reid cannot or will not maintain Democratic caucus discipline. By Manley’s admission, Reid is not going to do this. Hopefully at some point soon Manley and other representatives for Senator Reid will begin to honestly speak about their decision to not hold caucus discipline and instead prioritize letting Snowe write the legislation that she wants to see come to the floor of the Senate. The sole virtue in this – the sole thing that might actually lead this to more than 60 votes – is that it will be so bad it will satisfy the concerns of people like Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson. But that’s not what Democrats promised and it most certainly isn’t what the country wants.

Bust Them If They Filibuster

Rachel Maddow reported last night that “two major power brokers” from the left, presumably from outside the Senate,  are insisting that Democratic Senate leadership require all Democrats to vote against a Republican filibuster of health care reform. Any Democrat who joins the GOP to block health care reform should lose their committee chairmanship or subcommittee chairmanships as punishment. In effect, it’s time for the Senate leadership to bust some heads and show recalcitrant conservative Democrats that they simply will not be allowed to join a Republican filibuster of health care reform.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee has a petition up to Senator Reid calling on him to revoke the chairmanship of any senators who join the Republicans to filibuster health care reform. Sign it here.

Grayson, Republicans & the Press

Bravo, Representative Alan Grayson. Grayson is speaking truth to power and standing up for what he believes in.

What’s particularly sickening is how offended, how incensed Wolf Blitzer and his pundit colleagues at CNN are that Grayson had the gall to actually challenge Republicans for bald-faced opposition to any reform. But beyond that, what makes me want to pull my hair out is that the press is freaking out over Grayson’s words, but never once said a peep when Republican members of Congress said similar things. The Huffington Post reports:

By contrast, charges that the opposition’s health care plan will kill people have been about as common on the House floor lately as resolutions naming post offices.

Take Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Fla.), who said in July: “Last week, Democrats released a health care bill which essentially said to America’s seniors: drop dead.”

Or Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), a doctor, who reviewed the public health insurance option in July and diagnosed that it is “gonna kill people.”

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), not one to pull punches, suggested on the House floor that Congress “make sure we bring down the cost of health care for all Americans and that ensures affordable access for all Americans and is pro-life because it will not put seniors in a position of being put to death by their government.”

July was a busy time for House floor death sentences. Also that month, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), noted: “One in five people have to die because they went to socialized medicine…I would hate to think that among five women, one of ’em is gonna die because we go to socialized care.”

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) had a similar assessment. “They’re going to save money by rationing care, getting you in a long line. Places like Canada, United Kingdom, and Europe. People die when they’re in line,” he said on the House floor in July.

So far, none of the members of Congress who made such charges have apologized.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/despite-outrage-many-hous_n_304175.html

Of course they haven’t, because it would never occur to either the press or Democrats to demand apologies for the lies and smears Republicans have used to obstruct reform. But as soon as a Democrat finds the spine to say something that is functionally correct, all hell breaks lose. No one could have predicted…

The Importance of the Underlying Bill

There has rightly been a lot of attention given to the New York Times article, in which anonymous senior Senate aides float the idea that Harry Reid will not include the public health insurance option in the combined bill that is brought to the floor for a vote. Reid’s office has denied that this is the case, but the proof will be in the pudding. We will likely know in the next week or two what the bill Reid brings to the full Senate for consideration is and the contents of that bill will almost certainly be determinative of its outcome.

The reason for this is that we are approaching the point in time where substantive changes to the content of the legislation are able to be made. The big ticket item is obviously the public health insurance option, though there is no doubt the fate of provisions relating to access, affordability, and employer responsibility will be determined by the contents of Reid’s bill, too.

The reason that Reid’s decision is so crucial is that any amendment on the floor to controversial parts of the bill will likely require 60 votes to pass. This is not because it is in the Senate rules that controversial provision take 60 votes. It is not. But what has been the rule since Lyndon Johnson’s tenure as Majority Leader is that unanimous consent agreements are used to set ground rules for debate, amendments, and voting. To make a deal so things move forward, anything controversial like amendments which would add or remove the public health insurance option, will require 60 votes. And such, any amendment is almost certainly doomed to failure.

Chris Bowers highlights this in a run-down of the legislative state of play on health care reform:

No good strengthening amendments will pass on the Senate floor. If there is no public option in the bill that passes through Kent Conrad’s Budget committee, don’t expect one to emerge from the Senate via amendments. The 60-vote culture will be in effect for all amendments to the health care bill when it arrives on the Senate floor, and so there won’t be enough votes for the public option–or any other significant strengthening amendment-if it is not included in the bill that comes out of the Budget committee.

Republicans will not find 20 Democratic votes to strip the public option and while there are certainly more than 51, it is doubtful there are 60 votes to insert the public option in via an amendment.

The Times article reports on Reid’s decision making process:

“None of these decisions are going to be made without significant presidential input,” said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid.

And so, it is up to Harry Reid and, on the tough calls, President Obama. They will determine what the Senate votes on later this year. If the public health insurance option is in the bill, it is because Reid and Obama have decided that they want it to be, for they will know that it will not be stripped via amendment. And if it is not, it is because Reid and Obama expressly decided that they do not want it to be part of health care reform legislation. It is that simple.

What’s worse is the inevitability of it all. The inevitability of Reid and Obama refusing to wrangle conservative Senate Democrats to force them to stand up for the party and this presidency…and the expressly right policy. The inevitability of advocates of the public option trying to put a bright sheen a bill without it. I can see Schumer, Rockefeller, Brown or Dodd saying now, “We will get a chance to vote on it via an amendment and that’s the best we could have hoped for.” As if leadership could not have made a different choice…

At the end, though, there’s something reassuring about this process. If it goes as predicted above, with the public option sent by Harry Reid and Barack Obama to die the death of a failed amendment to a crappy bill then I will know exactly what I can expect when it comes to leadership from Obama and Reid. But if they do the right thing, if they push for policies that will literally affect every single American, then I can look forward to having a real Democratic presidency, after all. As I keep saying, time will tell.

Sirota on Obama & Primaries

David Sirota identifies a crucial problem with President Obama’s engagement on behalf of incumbents in Democratic Senate primaries: he’s stymieing primaries of people that are holding up his legislative agenda. Or, more specifically, he’s squashing primaries that would have the effect of either moving the incumbent to the left or replacing him with a more liberal Senator.

So, again, why is the White House trying to crush primaries? I’m not expecting him to back primary challengers…but why is he trying to crush them, instead of simply staying out of the races entirely? I mean, I get why incumbent Senators or House members don’t want to face primaries – they just want an easy ride. The vexing question is why the president would try to help them crush primaries, when those primaries would help it pass its legislative agenda?

In Sirota’s column on the same subject,  he gives a very harsh critique of Obama’s justifications for trying to crush these primaries.

Hence, in trying to prevent or weaken primaries against incumbents, Obama is not merely signaling a royalist’s disdain for local democracy. He is exposing a corrupted pol’s willingness to prioritize country club etiquette over policy results. If his agenda ends up being killed, that cynical choice will be a key cause of death.

It’s what the Democratic elite does – protect the members of their club from the indignant Democratic rabble. It’s unfortunate that a President who waged a successful primary campaign as an outsider with little experience would so quickly slide into the mold of the people he came to Washington to change.

Arguably the best thing that happened to the chances of Obama’s agenda succeeding, at least on health care and labor reform, was Joe Sestak’s decision to primary Arlen Specter from the left. In the course of this year, Specter moved from opposing a public option to supporting single-payer health care. That would simply not have been possibly if Specter wasn’t fighting for his political life in a Democratic primary. He moved from being an opponent to the health reform policy package Obama supports to being an advocate for one even stronger than what is under debate in Washington.

That is what makes Obama’s efforts to quash primaries in Pennsylvania and Colorado and New York so odd. It undermines his agenda to have more conservative Democrats in the Senate, especially ones that are not being challenged to move to the left by primaries. Even if the liberalism of Specter, Gillibrand, and Bennett is temporary, it is better than nothing, as it ensures that at lest 25-50% of Obama’s first term is spent with these people behaving like liberal Democrats and not moderate Republicans.  The only explanation that I see is that Obama doesn’t believe in primaries; he supports “kicking away the ladder” after he and his peers have climbed up it. Who knew that the President would have such an aversion to democracy in the Democratic Party?

The Coming Trigger War

Mike Lux is right, courting of Olympia Snowe’s support for health care legislation by the White House has the potential of starting a war within the Democratic Party over what reform will look like and who has the power to determine it. If Snowe comes at the cost of a trigger for the public health insurance option — constructed to be so weak that it will likely never be triggered — then it will surely cost liberal votes in both the Senate and the House. It will effectively put the Democrats in Congress in a position that pits their ideology against the President. This is an awful place to be, but more importantly it is an avoidable place to be.

What would instead make more sense would be for the White House to make the cloture vote in the Senate on whatever legislation comes to the floor a party line vote that will be scored by leadership. That is, if you don’t vote in favor of ending debate and getting the legislation to a majority wins situation, you will raise the ire of the White House, the Senate leadership, and the DSCC. In this way, it doesn’t matter how Olympia Snowe will vote – because the 60 members of the Democratic caucus will be sufficient to pass cloture and get to a simple majority-rules vote. On final passage, the White House will signal that members can take a walk if they don’t like the bill.

So much media attention has been given to needing 60 votes to pass a bill in the Senate. But this just isn’t true. 60 votes are needed to overcome the Republicans’ filibuster – a procedural vote that does not necessarily relate at all to the content of the legislation. To wit, we’ve seen the GOP walk away from  provisions they have previously supported with the sole principle involved being “Delay, delay, delay.”

If the White House demands it and if Harry Reid demands it, the cloture vote on health care legislation can be a party-line vote. Rather than moving to 51 votes to pass something under reconciliation, this would allow 51 votes to pass something under normal rules. A public option would be possible, as would any other provision. And Olympia Snowe would not be in a position to divide the Democratic Party.

It’s really a question of leadership. Will Snowe be the fulcrum that the Democratic Party is broken in two on? Or will President Obama show some muscle and demand support from the Senate to simply get to a majority vote? We shall see.

Not To Be Mistaken for Leadership

Matt Yglesias has a sober post about the Baucus proposal for healthcare reform legislation. While much of the blogosphere has been furious about its timidity, Yglesias sees value in that it would move the ball forward and improve the healthcare system in the United States. He justifies this, in part, by saying that while Massachusetts and Switzerland aren’t ideal models we should use to shape reform policies, they are notably better than the healthcare system elsewhere in America.

Sure. Fine. Whatever. No one who has been has an active advocate for massive reform (be it single payer or a public option) has ever said that it wasn’t possible to put together some package of changes that would constitute an incremental improvement of the healthcare system in America. It’s not surprising that the Baucus proposal would reduce the number of uninsured America and do some things to provide a higher degree of regulation of the insurance industry than we currently have. But this is not to be mistaken for leadership and therein lies the real critique of Baucus as I see it.

The challenge wasn’t for Baucus to take his position as chair of the Senate Finance Committee and create legislation that produces marginal change. The challenge to Baucus, and in reality to all members of Congress and the President, was to produce legislation that essentially solves the crises of the healthcare system: coverage, affordability, access, and quality care.  The needs for reform exceeds the benefit of incremental change.

So when I look at the Baucus compromise, which I would concede is better than I thought it would be and has a likely price tag of a couple hundred billion more than DC conservatives want, I am stunned by the refusal of Baucus to attempt to solve the healthcare problem by showing, at minimum, a comparable level of leadership to Chris Dodd and the three House committee chairs. Yglesias is right that the Finance proposal would make the healthcare system in the US a bit better than it currently is. But we need leadership, not incrementalism. And right now it will take leadership to overcome incrementalism put forward by Baucus.

Update:

There’s also the question of while conceding that the Baucus plan is an incremental step, it may not be a step in the right direction.  That seems to be Chris Bowers’ take. Obviously there is danger in pushing a piece of legislation that lowers the quality of coverage, increases risk, and is a handout to insurance companies. Whether or not this incrementalism is positive or negative, it is clear that it is nonetheless not leadership.

Taibbi on Healthcare, Democrats

Matt Taibbi, writing at True Slant, lays out the healthcare conundrum in pretty clear terms.

I’ve been getting phone calls from some folks in DC with some ugly stories about how the Democrats have systematically sandbagged the progressive opposition, with the White House pulling strings and levering the funding for various nonprofit groups in order to prevent them from airing ads attacking the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. I suspect in the end this is going to be the main story of the health care reform effort, how the Democrats (and some progressive groups) sold out their constituents in exchange for financial contributions from the relevant industries.

We’re reaching a head on what will happen on healthcare. Either the White House and leadership will put pressure on the Senate conserva-Dems who oppose a public health insurance option and get them to accept it, or the White House and leadership will put pressure on House progressives who have pledged to not vote for any bill that does not include a public option.  If the pressure falls on the House, then Taibbi’s take on Dems will at least in part be correct.  Adjudicating the extent to which he is right would depend on an assessment of whether, as he says, these Democrats are politically craven or if they just don’t believe the same things as their base…or the 2008 Obama campaign.

Dodd’s Eulogy of Kennedy

Senator Chris Dodd delivered this speech Friday night at the memorial for Senator Kennedy in Boston. It’s a great tribute from one of Ted Kennedy’s closest friends in the world and a sign of what three plus decades of collaboration can achieve for a nation.

Tonight, we gather to celebrate the incredible American story of a man who made so many other American stories possible, my friend Teddy Kennedy.

Unlike his beloved brothers, his sister Kathleen, and his nephews, Teddy was granted the gift of time – he lived, as the Irish poet suggested, not just to comb gray hair, but white hair.

And if you look at what he achieved in his 77 years, it seems, at times, as if he lived for centuries.

Generations of historians will chronicle his prolific efforts on behalf of others. I will leave that to them.

Tonight, I just want to share some thoughts about my friend.

And what a friend he has been – a friend of unbridled empathy, optimism, and full-throated joy.

Examples of his friendship are legion.

Many years ago, a close friend of mine passed away. Teddy didn’t know him.

I was asked to say a few words at the funeral.

As long as I live, I will never forget that, as I stood at the pulpit and looked out over the gathering, there was Teddy, sitting in the back of the church.

He wasn’t there for my friend. He was there for me, at my time of loss.

That was what it was like to have Teddy in your corner.

When our daughters Grace and Christina were born, first call I received was from Teddy.

When I lost the Iowa caucuses last year, not that anyone thought I was going to win, first call I received was from Teddy and Vicki.

When my sister passed away last month, first call I received was from Teddy, even though he was well into the final summer of his own life.

And two weeks ago, as I was coming out of surgery, I got a call from Teddy, his unique voice as loud and booming as ever.

“Well,” he roared, “Between going through prostate cancer surgery and doing town hall meetings, you made the right choice!”

And though he was dying, and I was hurting, he had me howling with laughter in the recovery room as he made a few choice comments, I cannot repeat, about catheters.

As we all know, Teddy had a ferocious sense of humor.

In 1994, he was in the political fight of his life against Mitt Romney.

Before the first debate, held in Boston’s historic Faneuil Hall, I was with Teddy and his team and, along with everyone else, offering him advice.

“Teddy,” I cautioned, “We Irish always talk too fast. Even if you know the answer to a question, you have to pause, slow down, and appear thoughtful.”

Out he went, and, of course, the first question was something like this: “Senator, you’ve served the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for nearly 35 years in the United States Senate. Explain, then, why this race is so close.”

Teddy paused. And paused. And paused. Five seconds. Ten seconds.

Finally, after what seemed like an eternity, he answered.

After the debate, I said, “Good Lord, Teddy, I didn’t mean pause that long after the first question! What were you thinking about?”

He looked at me and replied, “I was thinking – that’s a damn good question! Why IS this race so close?”

In these last months of his life, I have so treasured our conversations.

At 6:30 in the morning of July 16th, the morning after his Senate health care committee finished five weeks of exhausting work on the bill he had written, and that I believe will be the greatest of his many legacies, my phone rang.

There was Teddy, beyond ecstatic that we had finished our work, and that his committee had been the first to report a bill.

Always the competitor.

Teddy was never maudlin or self-pitying about his illness, but he was always fully aware of what was happening.

Every Irishman’s dream, of course, is to attend our own eulogies. That’s why we call the obituary page the Irish sports page.

And I know he enjoyed a uniquely Celtic kick out of hearing people who abhorred his politics say incredibly nice things about him.

Volumes, of course, will be published by those attempting to unlock the mystery of why Teddy was such an effective legislator.

Was it his knowledge of parliamentary procedure? His political instincts? His passionate oratory? His staff?

Please let me save the pundits and political scientists some time – and all of you some money – and tell you what Teddy’s secret was: People liked him.

Now, he always had a great staff, and great ideas, but that only counts for so much in the United States Senate, if you lack the respect and admiration of your colleagues.

And Teddy earned that respect.

He arrived in Washington as the 30-year-old brother of a sitting president and the attorney general of the United States.

Too many people drew their conclusions about him before he spoke his first words in the Senate.

And over the years, he became a target of partisans who caricatured him as a dangerous liberal.

Now, liberal he was, and very proud of it!

But once you got to know him, as his Senate colleagues did, you quickly learned he was no caricature.

He was a warm, passionate, thoughtful, tremendously funny man who loved his country, and loved the United States Senate.

If you ever needed to find Teddy in the Senate chamber, all you had to do was to listen for that distinctive thunderclap of a laugh, echoing across that hallowed hall as he charmed his colleagues – and, more often than not, got them to vote for whatever it was he was pushing that day.

He served in the Senate for almost a half-century alongside liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, and he befriended them with equal gusto.

It’s great to see his friends Senators Orrin Hatch and John McCain here.

It is to their great credit that they so often supported Teddy’s efforts.

And, I say in some jest, it is to Teddy’s great credit that he so rarely supported theirs.

But Teddy’s personal friendships with Orrin and John, and so many other conservatives, weren’t simply the polite working relationships that make politics possible.

They are the real and lasting bonds that make the United States Senate work.

That’s what made Teddy one of our greatest Senators ever.

Some people born with a famous name live off of it. Others enrich theirs. Teddy enriched his.

And, as we begin the task of summing up all that he has done for his country, perhaps we can begin by acknowledging this:

John Fitzgerald Kennedy inspired our America; Robert Kennedy challenged our America; and Teddy changed our America.

Teddy was involved in every major debate in the last half of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st.

Nearly every important law passed in the last half century bears his mark, and a great many of them bear his name.

Teddy was defined by his love of our country, his passion for public service, his abiding faith, and his family.

His much-adored Vicki, his children Kara, Teddy, and Patrick, his step-children Caroline and Curran, his grandchildren, nieces and nephews – all of you need to know, you brought him unbounded joy and pleasure.

Teddy was a man who lived for others.

He was a champion for countless people who otherwise might not have had one, and he never quit on them, never gave up on the belief that we could make tomorrow a better day. Never.

Last August in Denver, one year to the day before his passing, Teddy spoke at our national convention.

His gait was shaky, but his blue eyes were clear, and his unmistakable voice rang with strength.

As he passed the torch to another young president, Teddy said: “The work begins anew. The hope rises again. And the dream lives on.”

He spoke of the great fight of his life – ensuring that every American, regardless of their economic status, is guaranteed the right to decent health care.

We are all so saddened that he did not live to see that won.

But in a few short days, we will return to our work in Teddy’s Senate.

The blistering days of August will be replaced, I pray, by the cooler days of September.

And we will prevail in the way Teddy won so many victories for our country: by listening to each other; by respecting each other and the seriousness of the institution to which we belong, and where Teddy earned an immortal place in American history.

As he so eloquently eulogized his brother Bobby 40 years ago, Teddy doesn’t need to be enlarged in death beyond what he was in life.

We will remember him for the largeness of his spirit, the depth of his compassion, his persistence in the face of adversity, and the breadth of his achievement.

We will remember him as a man who understood better than most that America is a place of incredible opportunity, hope, and redemption.

He labored tirelessly to make those dreams a reality for everyone.

Those dreams, the ones he spoke of throughout his life, live on like the eternal flame that marks President Kennedy’s grave, the flame that Teddy and Bobby lit 46 years ago.

And in all the years I knew and loved him, that eternal flame has never failed to burn brightly in Teddy’s eyes.

Now, as he re-joins his brothers on the hillside in Arlington, may the light from that flame continue to illuminate our path forward.

And with the work of our own hands, and the help of God, inspired by Teddy’s example, may we lift up this great country that my friend Teddy loved so much.

Honoring Kennedy

Jake McIntyre at Daily Kos has a very important post that should help shape how we as a country think of Ted Kennedy’s memory and how we seek to honor his life’s work in coming days and years. The emphasis should be on passing legislation on the three areas Kennedy most championed over his career, the Teddy Trilogy: healthcare, labor, and immigration. McIntyre says it is not possible to honor Kennedy and oppose universal healthcare, giving all Americans the right to organize in their workplace, and pass comprehensive immigration reform that is just and fair.

More importantly, I like McIntyre’s take on framing how we must have a political memory of Ted Kennedy. He was a true liberal leader and he must be honored as such; his memory cannot be sanitized by Republicans seeking to diminish the political philosophy he fought tirelessly for until his final day.

When Paul Wellstone died they told us that we couldn’t celebrate him him as a political actor, that to do so would be crass and opportunistic. But the entire reason we knew Paul Wellstone, the reason we were crushed by his passing, was his political activism. It would have been a lie not to celebrate that legacy. It would have been crass to act as if Paul Wellstone hadn’t been first and foremost a progressive hero, to feign nonchalance over political concerns as we eulogized the man, and in so doing stripping him of his essence. Likewise, it would be a lie today to pretend that the reason we loved Ted Kennedy had nothing to do with his leadership for working people. And it would be crass to attempt to celebrate him with mere words, rather than the action he demanded from us in life. How can we not “politicize” his legacy? The man was who he was because of his wholehearted commitment to his politics. The real obscenity — the real opportunism — would be for his political opponents to now try and depoliticize a quintessentially political life.

This is actually reminiscent of a line from Senator Patrick Leahy’s statement yesterday on Kennedy’s death.

The powerful have never lacked champions. Ted Kennedy was a champion for ordinary Americans and for those who struggle. He believed everyone in this great land deserves the opportunity to pursue the American Dream.

Kennedy’s greatness was in no small driven by his moral commitment to helping those who were without privilege, without defender. That he came from one of America’s most successful families only underscores his commitment to public service to help preserve the American Dream for everyone. His life-long pursuit of service in honor of those who had less than him, even after his family had paid in blood three brothers to that cause, is a testament to his commitment to his beliefs.

Members of Congress, especially Democratic ones, need to honor Ted Kennedy’s lifetime of service by pressing forward with truly progressive legislation in the areas of healthcare, labor, and immigration. We need healthcare reform that includes major regulation of the insurance industry and Kennedy Insurance (formerly known as the public option). We need to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, so America’s workers can come together to make their lives better. And we need comprehensive immigration reform that will ensure our country continues to be a melting pot for people who seek to realize the American Dream and work to have a better future. These are all goals that speak to the beliefs, efforts, and principles that defined Ted Kennedy’s life. To pursue these is to honor Senator Kennedy. But to fail to achieve these is to do disservice to his memory.