New Edwards Ad

John Edwards has a new ad focused on his threats to cut off health care for members of congress and senior federal officials if they don't pass his health insurance plan:

I've previously taken the view that this is probably unconstitutional, a violation of the twenty-seventh amendment. The Edwards campaign says that, as pertains to administration officials, he would seek a pledge from them before appointing them. They also take the view that legislation ending health coverage for administration officials and members of congress would stand up as regards congress because the purpose of Amendment XXVII is to prevent pay increases rather than pay cuts (I have no information about the legislative history) and that it's not clear it applies to non-salary benefits (which sounds tendentious to me).

Edwards' campaign also tells me "if they want to fight about it, it is a fight President Edwards would be willing to have - because it is time to hold leaders accountable." It's all good rhetoric, I'll give them that.

Comments

Matt,

Somerby has a new post up asking why, in your piece pointing out that Russert (11/11) is an idiot, that you give the impression that he's a bipartisan idiot? Russert isn't a bipartisan idiot- he consistently attacks Dems more than Repubs. I agree with Bob that it would be useful to your readers if you pointed out that little fact when you're smacking Russert around.

Posted by DougMN | November 13, 2007 12:01 PM

I'm not sure about the pay thing. The history of the Compensation clause in the executive branch suggests it applies to both.

The non-salary thing seems more promising. After all, isn't the House gym a benefit? Yet we change funding for the House gym without intervening elections.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | November 13, 2007 12:18 PM

If the debate becomes whether Edwards can really cut off Congress's health care, then I think he's won the debate that health care reform needs to be domestic priority number one and done in the first six months.

Posted by JJF | November 13, 2007 12:24 PM

Garance is upset at Edwards over this at TAP. Is she starting to get the Beltway disease too? Does she not realize that this isn't the same thing in regards Presidential power as Darth and the Decider? Does she not realize how well this will play with the common folk? Has she looked at the approval ratings of Congress lately?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | November 13, 2007 12:24 PM

You would really have to torture the fuck out of the 27th ammendment to find a this to be a violation of it.

Yet, apparently, congress has the ability to grant a pardon to the telecom companies in spite of the powers of pardon and commutation being granted to the Executive, and not the legislative, branch. Make no mistake, I really don't see how selective, ex post facto exemptions to criminal laws can be viewed as anything other than a pardon by the legislative branch.

Posted by soullite | November 13, 2007 12:27 PM

Someone needs to research the founder's original intent as relates to Blue Cross-Blue Shield and Aetna.

Posted by steve duncan | November 13, 2007 12:33 PM

If this turned into an institutional cat fight it could be entertaining. What could congress take away from the Edwards? (And don't say the White House hairdresser.)

Posted by henry evans | November 13, 2007 12:40 PM

Garance is upset at Edwards over this at TAP. Is she starting to get the Beltway disease too?

"Starting" to get Beltway disease? Garance is Patient Zero over at TAP.

Posted by Christmas | November 13, 2007 12:40 PM

Patient Zero? What does that mean? I don't understand your lingo.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | November 13, 2007 12:43 PM

Right. The point isn't to take away Congress's health care, it is to pressure them into passing it for everyone else. As such it's an effective maneuver, if it seems a bit rude so be it.

Posted by AJ | November 13, 2007 12:49 PM

"Starting" to get Beltway disease? Garance is Patient Zero over at TAP."

Ain't it the truth.

-----

The part of this I love is that when Senator Clinton pushed for passing an unconstitutional law banning flag burning, Garance celebrated.

She has no problems with constitutional niceties as long as the objective is anti-progressive.

Posted by Petey | November 13, 2007 1:00 PM

This is the kind of stuff that turn me off.

Cheap demagoguery.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | November 13, 2007 1:01 PM

He's promising to do something he knows he can't do, but what a great line! Thank God the Democrats aren't deceitful like the Republicans.

Posted by ostap | November 13, 2007 1:02 PM

"As such it's an effective maneuver, if it seems a bit rude so be it."

But that's not how the Beltway surrender "Dems" think.

If the GOP proposes a populist measure like banning flag burning, the Beltway surrender "Dems" clamor to get on board.

If a progressive proposes a populist measure like linking Federal officials' healthcare to ordinary Americans' healthcare, the Beltway surrender "Dems" scream foul.

These folks play to lose. Fuck 'em.

Posted by Petey | November 13, 2007 1:04 PM

Of course it's excellent rhetoric. That a certain kind of pol/pundit on the Dem side is honestly alarmed by this is solid proof that those same pols/pundits simply don't know how to win the political fight with the current Republican party. The reaction to this is almost a litmus test for political competence in this environment. This is not to say that the constitution doesn't matter, nor to weigh in on whether the threat is constitutional or not (although, obviously, a threat is neither constitutional nor un). It's about Getting A Fucking Clue. I mean no slam at MY, who partially has on his PoliSci hat here. It's fine if you don't care for and wouldn't use this rhetoric yourself, of course; but if you are a partisan Dem and this really shocks and horrifies you (like it does GFR, evidently) you are a political fool; you and yours do not deserve to win anything.

But, of course, as we've learned from GWB, what really matters in both politics and everything else, is GOOD INTENTIONS, right?

Posted by jonnybutter | November 13, 2007 1:12 PM

At the very least, it's an open question.

I think it's a good tactic. I seriously doubt members of Congress can enforce the 27th Amendment to prevent taking away their healthcare benefits. If members of Congress want to sue the Edwards Administration to answer what is certainly at the very least an open constitutional question, since it hasn't happened before and the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it, that's a fight that Edwards would love to have. Can you imagine? If no members of Congress challenge it, then it stands.

The other thing Edwards could do is try to bring a Democratic Congress on board to vote to end health benefits for the next Congress, pending passage of healthcare reform legislation.

Posted by bob | November 13, 2007 1:14 PM

"Edwards' campaign also tells me "if they want to fight about it, it is a fight President Edwards would be willing to have - because it is time to hold leaders accountable." It's all good rhetoric, I'll give them that."

It's far more than just good rhetoric.

It's a way to actually get Universal Healthcare passed in 2009.

Politics matters.

Posted by Petey | November 13, 2007 1:23 PM

Joe Klein is the definition of a Beltway surrender "Dem":

(Edwards) may still win Iowa, but as Garance Franke-Ruta points out, this sort of demagogic nonsense is really dreadful.

Klein and GFR think only the right gets to use populist wedge issues. They get the vapors when populist wedge issues get used by the left.

Posted by Petey | November 13, 2007 1:27 PM

This rhetorical ploy on Edwards' behalf is effective alright; but it's only effective with the militant wing of the party. It's certainly not effective with the mainstream of the party, let alone the electorate. He's been spouting that line for some time now and his numbers are still stuck.

Needless to say that regardless of its legal feasibility, substantively it's a crock of shit. Because it is so and it so transparently, it's not effective. I mean does anyone think that Congress will change their minds because of it? Is there any congressman that's going to feel the heat because they won't have their benefits? Do you think that it win over public opinion? Edwards' health care plan will be won or lost on its merits and on the political battle well before June of 2009. It will be mostly won if the majority of the people agree with the need and the plan for health-care reform. If he does that, he ll win. If he doesn't, tricks like that will make him look ridiculous.

There's a reason Republicans can get away with flag-burning and similar tricks; they have an audience for it; there is a reason most people who don't buy these nonsense are with the Democrats. Regardless, this ploy is much beneath the level of even the flag-burning amendments.

The militant wing gets the wrong lesson from Republican success. And they re doing what they accuse Hillary: they become Republicans in tactics...

But forget that. Let's toss some other ideas for the Edwards campaign.

"If you don't stop the war, compulsory draft for your relatives who are of military age!"

"If you don't grant licenses to illegal immigrants, I am revoking your driving privileges!"

"If you don't stop torture, you re off to Guantanamo! Guantanamo: Where arm-twisting gets a whole new meaning!"

How could we be such fools when the way for solving our problems was right in front of our eyes...

Posted by Nick Kaufman | November 13, 2007 1:32 PM

Heck, let us end all health care coverage for Congress, no matter what they do!

Posted by Will Allen | November 13, 2007 1:34 PM

"And they re doing what they accuse Hillary: they become Republicans in tactics..."

Senator Clinton is a Republican in substance. That's why she's not going to be the Democratic nominee.

Posted by Petey | November 13, 2007 1:38 PM

I've previously taken the view that this is probably unconstitutional, a violation of the twenty-seventh amendment.

If Edwards were serious about the idea, rather than just using it as a campaign tactic, he should get a commitment from Pelosi and Reid to pass it in a lame-duck session Nov-Dec 2008 should Edwards be elected.

Posted by Al | November 13, 2007 1:39 PM

FDR: 'The only thing we have to fear is fear itself".

Modern US Democrat: 'Actually, there are a lot of unemployed people on the streets and roads these days, and people have, with some justification, some serious concern about that, about their and their familes' personal security. No, I can't support this line of talk.'

Jesus: 'Love thy neighbor as thyself"

Modern US Dem: "Many people feel that, if they really loved their particular neighbors, and certianly if they showed that love in a clearly overt way, they might be accused of marital infidelity, homosexual feelings or worse. This is dangerous, inflammitory talk."

"Kick out the jams, motherfuckers!'

Modern US Dem: 'I'm concerned that jam-kicking might be encouraged, especially among the young. The speaker may not be aware of the fact that there are 1.8 million moderate to serious foot injuries in the US every single year as the result of jam-kicking; that number goes even higher when jams are kicked in conjunction with inadequate footwear. This line of attack is problematic.'

Posted by jonnybutter | November 13, 2007 1:41 PM

As the Obama memo posted on Ambinder's blog points out, Edwards is now faced with the extremely difficult task of re-acquiring Iowa supporters who said they supported him earlier this year, but now say they support Hillary or Obama (he was polling in the 30s in Iowa earlier this year and he's now in the 20s).

I hope this ad is the kind of impetus that will bring those weakly-committed causus-goers back. It seems like the odds are stacked heavily against him at this point, though. I think he could definitely beat Hillary 1-on-1, but Obama with more money and media attention is killing him.

Posted by zouk | November 13, 2007 1:48 PM

It's far more than just good rhetoric.
It's a way to actually get Universal Healthcare passed in 2009.
Politics matters.

Good rhetoric is inseperable from good politics.

Posted by jonnybutter | November 13, 2007 1:51 PM

At the risk of wasting everyone's time by taking this seriously, I do have a practical concern:

What, exactly, is the American President's power to take health care benefits away from members of other branches of government? Purely as a procedural matter, how would he do it? The president can say whatever he wants, but what series of concrete actions would result in the president rescinding Congress' health benefits as punishment for not enthusiastically endorsing his legislative agenda?

Next up: President Edwards, appalled by Congress' unwillingness to do something about unemployment, promises that unless there's full employment in six months he'll fire Congress. After all, why should they have jobs when you don't have a job?

Posted by JB | November 13, 2007 1:56 PM

Maybe I'm missing something. Edwards is promising to use his executive power to withhold benefits from Congress, right? I agree that's a horrible idea, and a bad move politically, but I don't see where the 27th amendment comes into this. The law won't be changing, he's promising to subvert the law.

Posted by daveadams | November 13, 2007 1:57 PM

I thought as a Unitary Executive in a Time of War Footing in the Eternal Battle to Defeat Violent Extremism, the president had infinite powers and no one could stop him.

Or does that only apply to Bush Jr.?

Posted by El Cid | November 13, 2007 2:06 PM

Wow, that's some pearl clutching.

If Edwards is elected, will this rhetoric (which is most probably, but at least arguably, a practical approach) work for or against the implementation of Universal Health Care?

This is such an easy one, I can't even believe it's a problem for the fainting-couch crowd.

They're fine with 'nothing's off the table' regarding preemptive nuclear strikes of Iran, but 'nothing's off the table' in terms of guaranteeing Universal Health Care? Terrifying!

Posted by gussie | November 13, 2007 2:08 PM

I thought as a Unitary Executive in a Time of War Footing in the Eternal Battle to Defeat Violent Extremism, the president had infinite powers and no one could stop him.

Or does that only apply to Bush Jr.?

Why stop with denying health benefits? Edwards should threaten to water board any Congressman who dares defy his agenda.

Of course, he then runs the risk that "judicial review" would consist of the Supreme Court endorsing extraordinary rendition by handing President Edwards over to the Egyptian Mukhabarat.

Posted by JB | November 13, 2007 2:32 PM

I'm not sure which part of Article II specifically gives the President the right to deprive someone of health care, but Edwards better, because this sounds like it would be an 8-1 decision against him once the Roberts Court weighs in.

This just smacks of desperation to me. He's got to know that this gambit probably won't work, but Edwards's desperation is making him say all these sorts of things (remember that bit about banning SUVs) that might just get some of his supporters excited but are really just attempts to get some attention to his campaign.

Posted by Lev | November 13, 2007 3:35 PM

This just smacks of desperation to me.

Well, it's not new. He's been saying this for months. The *spot* is new. You could say that his whole campaign this time is 'desperate' - in the sense that he thinks this is a desperate moment in our history, and that liberalism desperately needs to be rejuvinated; and that you don't do that by mincing around the edges, but rather by taking the bull by the horns and going all in. I agree with him.

Too bad we have so many literalists in our party. The GOP has their literalists to deal with - they're called 'fundamentalists' or 'right-evangelicals', but they don't do politics itself so literally, which is why they do better.

Posted by jonnybutter | November 13, 2007 8:26 PM

This is exactly the sort of rhetorical question the candidates should be asking.

Some of the nincompoops here attempt to play the slippery slope with 'will he waterboard people' or 'force them into unemployment' if they disagree etc.

No. This fundamentally misunderstands the question being raised. It implies that healthcare is public good to which everyone is entitled. Therefore, no person, no matter their position--be they a congressman, firefighter, or cashier--deserves to suffer or die as a result of inadequate health insurance.

Demagogue?

Man, democrats are such fucking sheep. Of course Joe Klein and his ilk find this disturbing, they have health insurance. Its not their fucking problem.

However, for the rest of us, this means something.

John Edwards is starting to sound exactly like the leader the democrats need. It high time we elected somebody with some guts, instead of evasive cowards afraid of everyone and everything.

Its very scary how afraid so many democrats are of standing up and fighting. It seems we should just be audacious enough to hope.

Well, when I am sick and hungry because my job provides me too fuckin little, hope is not going to do much for me. policy will.

Posted by jeff | November 13, 2007 9:42 PM

No. This fundamentally misunderstands the question being raised. It implies that healthcare is public good to which everyone is entitled. Therefore, no person, no matter their position--be they a congressman, firefighter, or cashier--deserves to suffer or die as a result of inadequate health insurance.

Edwards is actually saying precisely the opposite--that if you serve in a Congress that doesn't pass his specific health care legislation on his specific timetable, you (and your family) do deserve to suffer and die as a result of inadequate health insurance. That's why King John, exercising the apparently infinite power of the executive, will unilaterally eliminate Congress' health care plan if the legislature defies his will.

He's very plain about all this in the ad, and the only reason it's not appalling is that he's clearly lying. Here's his spokesman explaining the details of Edwards' bold stand against health care for members of Congress:

"He would introduce legislation, that's all it is.... He would introduce legislation and ask them to set a deadline for themselves."

So he will take Congress' health care away by... introducing legislation asking Congress to take its health care away. In other words, it's a publicity stunt. But my hat's off to his campaign for managing to draw a false equivalence between people who don't support health care reform and people who don't support executive tyranny. That'll certainly advance the cause of progressive governance.

Posted by JB | November 14, 2007 5:39 AM

Nick Kaufman, you're pretty much dreaming if you think a champagne-swilling, caviar-eating guy like you is the 'mainstream of the Democratic party'. This is why people like you support Hillary at all costs, because she won't take your shiny privileges away.

Posted by Soullite | November 14, 2007 8:02 AM

I'm sure you retards are the descendents of the idiots who through a sissy-fit when FDR proposed expanding the number of seats on the supreme court as well. You talk a good game about progressivism and egalitarianism, but when it comes down to it you look real hard for a reason not to go through with any tactic that might actually focus pressure on the people who stand in the way of progress.

Some of us here aren't serious about making a better world, and it isn't the people on JE's side in this,

Posted by Soullite | November 14, 2007 8:05 AM

This dangerous, radical style by Democratic politicians must be avoided if we wish to return to the amazing record of success that more centrist, wiser, calmer Democratic politicians had from 1994 to 2006.

Posted by El Cid | November 14, 2007 9:32 AM

How is Edwards "focus[ing] pressure on the people who stand in the way of progress"? Presumably even a progressive could have good-faith disagreements with Edwards' health care proposal. This progressive Congressman would then, according to the Edwards model of executive tyranny, lose his/her health care by presidential fiat. Think about how "progressive" our government will become if that becomes a commonplace exercise of presidential authority.

But the whole issue is moot, because Edwards' own spokesman admits that Edwards' illegal plan to unilaterally cancel the benefits of government employees is just bluster. So his "I'll take away Congress' health benefits" ad is being broadcast all over Iowa, while his spokesman's caveat that the candidate is actually lying has mostly gotten play in the blogosphere and other refuges for political obsessives. It's not very "progressive" or "egalitarian" to cut an ad designed to exploit regular people's ignorance of the limits of the president's authority.

If you defend Edwards, in this instance, for his "progressive" or "egalitarian" approach, it seems like you believe at least one of the following:

1. It is "progressive" and "egalitarian" for the US president to illegally deny benefits to government employees as punishment for not supporting administration policy.

2. Lying to people, and operating under the assumption that they don't know the system well enough to see through your dishonesty, is "progressive" and "egalitarian."

But, hey, why engage this issue on its merits when you can claim that it satisfies some ill-defined standard of being "good politics"? If you take that approach you can skip the real discussion and go straight to calling people with whom you disagree "retards" and "descendants of idiots."

Enjoy the race to the bottom; I think you'll find the Edwards campaign in one of the sub-basements.

Posted by JB | November 14, 2007 9:46 AM

JB,

You're confusing politics, PR, and rhetoric with policy. To call congressional representatives and senators "government employees" and to fret about a hypothetical "punishment" of them (the vast majority of whom are independently wealthy) is so politically tone deaf as to make me wonder whether you're actually a republican mole. Your posts in this thread are nearly the textbook definition of concern trolling.

Posted by DMonteith | November 14, 2007 10:12 AM

I think John Edwards should stop threatening to behead children who don't like him because I think it is really bad to behead children. John Edwards is a mean phony fake whose own staff says he won't behead children but he says it any way just so he can make us all mean and angry and turn us into bad angry liberal crazy people who don't see how if people like Edwards would just shut up then someday somebody might do something about health care when they feel good and ready.

Also, I don't think it's right to cut children's heads off and I think it's wrong for John Edwards to talk about cutting kids' heads off.

Posted by El Cid | November 14, 2007 10:47 AM

I'd planned on making my previous post my last in this thread, since I've pretty much said what I wanted to say, but in light of the above post I'm worried that silence might look like I was slinking away, having been "outed" as a "concern troll." So I'll just say that all of my posts in this thread (as in other threads) have been in good faith. Take them for what they're worth.

Posted by JB | November 14, 2007 10:48 AM