Senator Michael Bennet; He Said “Yes”

Senator Michael Bennet

More than enough ink on these pages (and others) has been devoted to the influence that money and political aspirations has had on the health reform debate. In a recent post, “Why We All Need to Send Joe Lieberman a Dollar,” I beseeched Senator Joseph Lieberman to vote his conscience (as opposed to the will of Private Insurers) and, acknowledging the dominant role of money in both politics in general and the Senate in particular, I wrote

Senator Joe Lieberman is an Independent. As romantically autonomous as that may sound, it also means he can count on support from neither the Democratic nor Republican Parties. It takes money to maintain a Senate seat. Why is this germane to health reform? Because a) money always is; and b) Mr. Lieberman by virtue of his Independent status presumably does not have enough– and has recently announced that he will not vote for cloture (to end a filibuster) on Harry Reid’s opt-out Public Option plan.

And

Tim Noah over at Slate covers the question very well in an article well worth reading. Noah posits that because Lieberman can no longer count on Party Politics, he’s attempting to curry favor among the Insurers. Noah writes:

Why would Lieberman want to sink health reform? Klein points out that in the pretty recent past, Lieberman has supported the general goal, if not the specifics, of Obamacare. But consider Lieberman’s political situation. He is no longer a Democrat. That means he no longer has a political base. In the future, he will have to rely more on constituencies and on cash. The White House suggests that Lieberman wouldn’t dare alienate voters by opposing health reform. But what’s the most cash-rich constituency in the Nutmeg State? The insurance industry, which is headquartered in Connecticut and employs 64,000 people.

At the moment, insurers probably aren’t too pleased with Connecticut’s other senator, Democrat Chris Dodd, because Dodd is a prominent advocate for the public option. As I’ve noted previously, Dodd, during the past 20 years, received $2.3 million in contributions from insurers-more than any member of the House or Senate except John McCain, R-Ariz. During that same period, Dodd collected $774,000 from health insurers, ranking second only to House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. Lieberman, even though he’s from Connecticut, has during that same period had to settle for 14^th place in both insurance-industry contributions and health-insurance-industry contributions. Blocking the public option might allow Lieberman to displace Dodd as “the senator from Aetna.”

Bismarck’s law and sausage quote comes to mind; it is after all politics. In that post on Lieberman and the political process I also wrote:

So it seems we’ve come to this: “Independence” means “in search of the highest bidder.”

But every once in awhile the process, or more directly, people, can surprise.

Senator Michael Bennet, (D-Colo) has done just that. Colorado’s Grand Junction Sentinel reports

Bennet answered “Yes” when asked Sunday on CNN, “If you get to the final point and you are a critical vote for health care reform, and every piece of evidence tells you, if you support that bill, you will lose your job, would you cast the vote and lose your job?”

He said “Yes.”

Senator Bennet is said to face challenges this next year for his Senate seat from “within the Democratic Party from former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff. [Jane] Norton, a Grand Junction native, faces two other Republicans on her side of the aisle: Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck and former state Sen. Tom Wiens of Douglas County.

The Sentinel reports that “Bennet’s response drew fire from Jane Norton, one of three Republicans jockeying to run for Bennet’s Senate seat next year.

Bennet’s response “shows he’s very out of touch with Colorado,” Norton said.

On the contrary, I would suggest to Ms. Norton that what Senator Bennet’s stand has shown is an understanding of the duties inherent for a representative in a republican form of government: to vote his best judgment and his conscience– despite personal consequences.

This country is informed by a grand tradition of such. And it may be worth noting that not so unlike the health reform debate,  the road to our Constitution was filled with bitter debate and disagreement. The Declaration of Independence was likewise hotly debated. For Pennsylvania five delegates cast their votes regarding independence. At the final vote on July 2, 1776 Pennsylvania delegates were deadlocked: two for, two against. John Morton, a farmer and a surveyor, despite what he knew would be the disapproval of his district, voted “Yea,” and the rest as they say is history. Pennsylvania approved the Declaration, 3-2. Independence.

In the book, “Signing their Lives Away,” the authors note:

Back home in his district, Morton was unpopular because of what he’d done. A sensitive man, he was said to have been deeply affected by his neighbors’ ostracism.

About nine months after signing he became sick and died.

On his deathbed he dictated a message intended for those friends and neighbors angered that he had ignored their wishes by voting for independence. “Tell them,” he said, “that they will live to see the hour when they shall acknowledge it to have been the most glorious service I ever rendered my country.”

The words are engraved on the obelisk over his grave.

Good job Senator Bennet. I feel privileged to be eating some of my words.