Kennedy's Stance on Medicare Angers Allies

ASHINGTON, June 21 — Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Democratic Massachusetts bogyman for generations of Republican candidates, has brought President Bush and the Senate's Republican leadership to the verge of victory on a social issue Democrats have dominated for years.

To the anger and befuddlement of some of his colleagues in the Senate and House as well as liberal health care policy groups, Mr. Kennedy moved quickly and solidly behind a bipartisan Senate plan to add prescription drug coverage to Medicare, even though the initiative is opposed by many of his longtime allies. He acknowledges that the proposal needs some repair work but said that after years of gridlock, the Medicare moment has arrived.

"This is an opening," Mr. Kennedy said in an interview as he brushed off criticism from his colleagues. "Democrats don't have many openings with this administration or with a Republican Senate and a Republican House, and we ought to take advantage of it."

Nevertheless, his move earned him an earful from labor leaders with whom he has long been associated and a worried phone call from a partner in past battles over health care — Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, dean of the House and a backer of the creation of Medicare in 1965.

Critics of the Medicare proposal say that by offering such a ringing public endorsement to the Senate measure, Mr. Kennedy has made it hard for other Democrats to attack it, given his stature as a defender of programs for the poor and elderly. They say his support sapped leverage that Democrats needed to win changes on the Senate floor. The first substantive Democrat amendment garnered fewer than 40 votes.

"I have always been taught that a good lawyer compromises on the courthouse steps," said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, who says he believes that Mr. Kennedy's early backing set back the cause. "Obviously, it has made it hard to form cohesive Democratic opposition."

In the House, where minority Democrats always face a steep uphill battle, lawmakers say Mr. Kennedy's decision has created an impression that he supports the House version when he actually does not.

"It has made it much more difficult," said Representative George Miller, Democrat of California.

Leaders of some advocacy groups that normally consider Mr. Kennedy their champion are unhappy, saying he is providing political heft for a measure they consider inadequate. They also say this is the tip of a Republican plan to eventually turn Medicare over to private insurance companies.

"Just because he is Ted Kennedy, that doesn't make him right," Jeff Blum, the executive director of USAction, a group seeking more generous drug benefits, said.

The private complaints of Democrats are more severe. One senator said that "there is really a lot of grumbling" and suggested that Mr. Kennedy was in danger of abdicating his unofficial role as leader of the liberal bloc.

Mr. Kennedy says he does not see it that way. The current proposal, he said, would be just the beginning, a $400 billion down payment on drug benefits. He said the failure of President Bill Clinton's comprehensive health plan in 1994 had convinced him that the way to make health care policy gains was incrementally.

And he said Democrats would still have a potent political weapon: the argument that voters should send more of them to Congress to improve the initiative. Passing an acceptable plan, he said, will "reaffirm the confidence that seniors have had that Democrats have been the ones that initiated Medicare, fought for Medicare" and expanded it.

Despite divergent views on the wisdom of his maneuver, no one disputes that Mr. Kennedy's stamp of approval was a crucial ingredient for advancing a deal that has escaped the two parties for years.

Mr. Kennedy was courted by Senator Bill Frist, majority leader and Republican of Tennessee, who wants a prescription drug law to validate his new leadership role and inoculate Republicans against accusations that the party is weak on Medicare. Dr. Frist said he considered Mr. Kennedy's backing essential, the icing on top of sure Democratic support from moderates like Senator John B. Breaux of Louisiana.

"When he spoke out in favor of it, I think a lot of people who you would normally expect to be opposed had to fold their tent," Mr. Breaux said.

Mr. Kennedy laid out his support in a tense luncheon of Democratic senators on June 10, a critical moment for mapping out the party position on the drug plan. Those who attended the private lunch said Mr. Kennedy was itching to talk, even interrupting a colleague's analysis of the proposal to say that it was time to let a proponent speak. The speaker, Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, had already said that he would back the measure. Mr. Kennedy then gave a passionate appeal for the bill that left some fellow Democrats put out.

Two days later, when the Finance Committee adopted the proposal, all but three Democrats voted for it. Senator Tom Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, who as majority leader last year was unable to get a prescription drug deal off the Senate floor, was among those who backed it. He now says he shares Mr. Kennedy's thinking.

"I think he made a calculation that, frankly, I have come to subscribe to myself," Mr. Daschle said. "Let's try to improve it. Let's build a record. This will not be the final debate on prescription drugs, I guarantee you."

As word of Mr. Kennedy's view spread, he got a call from Mr. Dingell, whose standing in the House is similar to Mr. Kennedy's across the Capitol. A result was a letter from Mr. Kennedy, disavowing the Republican-written House version. Mr. Dingell offered no criticism of Mr. Kennedy, though he did say, "I probably would not have done it the same way."

Mr. Kennedy confirmed that he also had calls from a range of union presidents. He responded with a letter spelling out that he believed the measure would help older Americans, particularly those at lower income levels.

As Mr. Kennedy's critics search for his motivation, some suggest he is doing it for his personal legacy, wanting one last significant legislative achievement. He and his advisers dismiss that idea and say he is not going anywhere.

Others point to Mr. Kennedy's close relationship with Nick Littlefield, a former senior aide who has been retained by drug manufacturers to lobby on the issue. Aides said that to suggest that anyone had undue influence on the senator was to disregard his decades of work on Medicare.

Mr. Littlefield said Mr. Kennedy's position "has absolutely nothing to do with me and everything to do with his commitment to getting prescription drugs in Medicare."

One usual Kennedy ally, Edward Coyle of the Alliance for Retired Americans, said Medicare users would not like the plan no matter who wrote it.

"Even if Ted Kennedy is standing behind George Bush and Bush hands him a pen when he signs it, seniors are going to quickly realize the impact on them," Mr. Coyle said.

Ron Pollack of Families USA said the strategy put Mr. Kennedy in a strong position in negotiating the final product with the House. "Nobody in the United States Congress has worked longer and harder on the prescription drug issue," he said. "So nobody has the credibility the senator has on this issue."

Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, said, "There are those who are suspicious that Senator Kennedy wouldn't be for something that wasn't in the direction of a government-run health care system."

About the only good thing to say about Kennedy is that he pretty much sticks to his tune and if he backs something now, he'll probably back it later, even if his opponents back it too. Could be a trick with future plans, but not really an anomally for him.

I heard an interesting theory advanced today on meet the depressed by none other than Mr. Dean. He said that this medical bill is atrocious and that instead of doing this, raise taxes and mgive the "entitlement" -- his word not mine. But here is the crux of his argument.

He does not trust Mr. Bush because this is likely politics as usual. The Senate will barely pass a bill that is not good, and the radical right wing house will not budge on what they have written (ie no benefit). Then the conferees will be appointed upon which the demonrats will have no representation and an unacceptable conference report will be sent back to the senate. At this point, good meaning democrats will have no choice but to vote the bill down and then Bush can claim that the rats themselves have voted no on Rx benefit.

If this is true, all I say is kudos Mr. Bush -- nice to see you do to them what they have done to us. BTW Dean was DISGUSTING on MTP today -- and I thought Russert made him look like a blathering idiot on several points. Anyone else see it?

"They also say this is the tip of a Republican plan to eventually turn Medicare over to private insurance companies."

Well, at least some of our enemies "get it"...

I have to say though, that watching the New York Times bash Ted Kennedy is like watching the uber-conservatives on Free Republic bash Bush: it's fratricide.

But at least the schadenfraude is more pleasant when it's the NYTimes bashing Kennedy!

I am getting the feeling the fix is in.

When the hero of Chappaquiddick sidles a Republican bill that can only win the Pubs support, something is wrong.

My paranoid take is that the movers and shakers of the Dammcratic Party will concede GWB his second term.

But then, in '08, the Pubs are going to have to climb Mount Hillary, a daunting task indeed.

If we are to stop the Hillary from becoming the Rodham-Clinton president, we had best start planning now.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.