home

What Dem Senator Is Going To Filibuster The Public Option?

Nothing annoys me more than reading those Very Serious bloggers who buy into premises for no good reason. Here is Kevin Drum (via anti-public option Ezra):

Quick background: Republicans will filibuster any healthcare bill that reaches the floor of the Senate, and it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. If a healthcare bill includes a public option provision, it's vanishingly unlikely that we can find those 60 votes. But budget reconciliation bills can't be filibustered, so an alternative is to include the public option but then introduce the bill via the reconciliation process, where it needs only 50 votes to pass.

Quick background - Republicans alone can not filibuster anything. So tell me Kevin, who are the Dem senators who are going to join a GOP filibuster of health care reform? Let's stick to the facts please. Even when you are shilling for a Dem capitulation on health care reform.

Speaking for me only

< DOJ Files DOMA Brief: Law Bad, But Must Be Enforced | Naming Names >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The answer is none (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:42:00 PM EST
    What you'll hear is a bunch of sputter about Byrd and Kennedy, both of whom should either show up for work or be replaced IMO.

    While I wouldn't put it past Nelson, Lieberman ... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by magster on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:12:09 PM EST
    Bayh, Lincoln, Conrad, Pryor and Landreau to filibuster, they need to be made to actually do it, and justify themselves to the voters.

    It's hard to be critical of Kennedy, but it would be ironic if he is the reason a filibuster can't be broken.

    Parent

    Completely agree (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by cal1942 on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 09:45:59 PM EST
    either show up for work or be replaced

    Have been thinking about this recently.

    Parent

    Certainly some brinksmanship at least (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:43:56 PM EST
    is in order.

    Parent
    for this (none / 0) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:45:05 PM EST
    they should absolutely show up on a gurney or be replaced.

    amen


    Parent

    Kennedy is, if I'm reading the signs correctly, (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:48:51 PM EST
    too sick to move. Byrd could probably be wheeled in.

    Both really need to get out of the way at this point, and I say that with all due respect.

    Parent

    Kennedy needs to resign in time (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:52:05 PM EST
    for Patrick to name his replacement.

    Parent
    Hell (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:52:34 PM EST
    Let Caroline move to Mass and appoint her.

    Parent
    MA will have to change its law back (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:53:13 PM EST
    because it provides for a special election. (Changed in the first place to prevent Romney from replacing Kerry).

    Parent
    No Senator UNTIL the special election? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:54:23 PM EST
    Really? Whoa.

    Parent
    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:54:59 PM EST
    Of course, I think we can count on the MA leg to change this if they need to.

    Parent
    Do it NOW (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:55:45 PM EST
    I'm surprised they haven't (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:56:19 PM EST
    because Kennedy's death appears imminent to me.

    Parent
    It's (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:58:30 PM EST
    because you're dealing with a gov that has a 19% approval rating. Here's your first test of the hopey changey thing in a state. It isn't pretty.

    Parent
    denile (none / 0) (#31)
    by CST on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:58:52 PM EST
    not just a river in egypt.

    Parent
    Yes, he couldn't attend his sister's (none / 0) (#113)
    by sallywally on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 09:43:23 PM EST
    funeral service in the same town. It doesn't sound good.

    Parent
    Yes, he couldn't attend his sister's (none / 0) (#114)
    by sallywally on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 09:43:32 PM EST
    funeral service in the same town. It doesn't sound good.

    Parent
    Don't hold your breath. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:16:44 PM EST
    That would be right now (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:53:39 PM EST
    since Patrick is up for re-election next year.

    Parent
    Deval Patrick (none / 0) (#35)
    by mikeel on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:02:59 PM EST
    You want a senator appointed by Mr. 19%?  Even in Massachusetts that could pitch a Senate seat away.

    Parent
    Pitch it away? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:07:09 PM EST
    Ridiculous.

    Parent
    no chance (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by CST on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:13:16 PM EST
    there are a number of popular dems that could be appointed and it would be just fine.  I can't think of a single popular republican in MA right now.  Honestly, I think if a popular Dem ran against Patrick they would win hands down.  But even Mr. 19% is tied in match ups against republicans.

    That means that at least 20% of the people who think he is doing a poor job would vote for him anyway over the most popular Republican in the state.

    Parent

    With the alternative being (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:03:41 PM EST
    no healthcare bill, yes.

    Parent
    I doubt that would happen. (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by dk on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:12:19 PM EST
    First of all (I'm a MA resident, for what that's worth), the change to replacement by vote is rather enlightened, IMO, so I don't see why the state should revert to the old method (yes, I know the law only changed for the political reasons you cite above, but this is one of those cases where the political move was also the right move).

    Second of all, for those who care just about politics, as opposed to enlightened policies, the MA legislature would have to be dragged kicking and screaming to give Deval that kind of power.  They don't like him.

    For what it's worth, my bet is that Martha Coakley (the current MA attorney general) will eventually get the seat.  She is the person with the widest statewide name recognition who wants the job, I think.

    Parent

    The law is imperfect (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:14:20 PM EST
    because it deprives the state of representation for the months it takes to conduct a special election. In a body as manifestly unfair as the US Senate, that kind of thing matters.

    The law should be further amended to allow the Governor to make an appointment valid until a special election can be conducted.

    Parent

    More than that (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:16:46 PM EST
    It should mandate a special election within 2 months.

    Parent
    I read an article (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:19:03 PM EST
    in the Boston Globe about when this happened and they said under the new rules, there would be a special election 145-160 days after Kerry was elected president.  Don't know if those rules still hold out or if it was just because Kerry would have moved to a higher office.

    Parent
    I assume you need a primary (none / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:19:27 PM EST
    and a general. If that can be done in two months, great. The  California method for special elections is actually not terrible in that regard (win it with a majority in round one of a jungle primary, or the top candidate from each party advances to a second round).

    Parent
    There is absolutely no way Kennedy can (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:21:14 PM EST
    vote if he can't be physically present?

    Parent
    Senator Pete Wilson (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:48:48 PM EST
    was wheeled in on a stretcher to vote against a cost of living increase for Social Security during the Reagan years.

    They held open the Senate for hours for Sherrod Brown to return from his mother's funeral to vote on the stimulus bill.

    If Teddy is conscious, they will get him to the Senate to vote for health care.

    Parent

    If that happens I'm going to cry (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:54:19 PM EST
    I can see him doing it.  I can see him wanting that to be one of the last things he does if he can do it at all.  It would be hard as family to watch him spend the last of his strength on that, but the Kennedys have never been an overly ordinary family.

    Parent
    Back in 64 for the vote on (none / 0) (#117)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 09:57:42 PM EST
    the Civil Rights Bill, Sen Claire Engel (CA), a real question mark on the issue, was wheeled into the senate chamber.

    He couldn't speak, so he pointed to his eye -- Aye ...

    He died w/n a few weeks.

    (Gov Brown soon named his replacement -- a former top Kennedy aide, ex press sec'y to JFK Pierre Salinger.)

    Parent

    Woman suffrage would not (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 10:16:17 PM EST
    have been passed at last by Congress, and by only two votes, but for a few members who came back from their own sickbeds -- and one from his wife's deathbed.  She told him to go vote for women to get the vote, and by the time he got back home, it was for her funeral.

    And the Constitutional amendment authored by Susan B. Anthony decades before would not have won its required ratification in time for women in every state (since most already had suffrage) to vote in 1920 but for one vote -- by the newest member of the Tennessee legislature who switched at the last minute because his mother wrote him and told him to do so, so she could vote before she died.  

    Of course, he was not re-elected. . . .

    Parent

    None (none / 0) (#72)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:21:54 PM EST
    Meh. (none / 0) (#70)
    by dk on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:21:31 PM EST
    Having a senator in place purely through gubernatorial fiat is imperfect too.  Pick your imperfection.

    Parent
    Under the circumstances, (none / 0) (#74)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:23:14 PM EST
    I have a very clear idea of which is best.

    Parent
    Well, I suppose (none / 0) (#75)
    by dk on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:25:33 PM EST
    if Massachusetts prevents bad policy from being enacted, I suppose that's a special bonus.

    Parent
    That's rather harsh (none / 0) (#105)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 08:37:35 PM EST
    Byrd and Kennedy have been wonderful, democratic, Senators.  They shouldn't be fired from their jobs just because they are sick.  Are there other jobs where you think people should lose their jobs because of illness?  

    Parent
    Most jobs will force you to go (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 10:49:52 PM EST
    to a permanent disability status if it is determined that you will never be able to return to work.

    Parent
    Lots of jobs (none / 0) (#112)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 09:25:47 PM EST
    My father was "retired" from his teamster job when he had a stroke. If you are unable to recover and do the job, what are the other options?

    I agree with having a special election but I think the governor needs to be able to appoint an interim till then. States shouldn't be without represntation for months on end. I'd have even gone along with MN appointing someone while the Franken/Coleman fiasco dragged on month after month.

    Parent

    The underlying (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:53:03 PM EST
    message that I'm getting from the "oh, so serious" bloggers is that HCR is pretty much dead. Or maybe Ezra was telling the truth that the WH was so desperate that they're willing to do anything to get "something passed".

    Right now I'm expecting the whole thing to collapse and I will be suprised if it doesnt.

    Is the White House really desperate? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:14:40 PM EST
    Can unity be over with now?

    Parent
    Interesting that (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by cal1942 on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 09:50:51 PM EST
    Obama never made a real effort to promote unity in his own party.  Then again that would mean being a leader and partisan, two characteristics that, just like single-payer, are off the table.

    After this I don't believe he'll have a snowball's chance of leading anything even if he does finally figure out that his way is no way.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:15:58 PM EST
    it depends on if Ezra was telling the truth or not. The polls have shifted against Obama on this issue so maybe they are desperate.

    Parent
    I'm a bit unplugged (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:17:49 PM EST
    Where can I look quickly to see some of the polling?

    Parent
    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:20:04 PM EST
    has a link to a new NBC poll under the AARP thread. The public has turned against the public option apparently.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#71)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:21:40 PM EST
    Link

    The question of whether or not the eventual health-care reform legislation will include a public/government option to compete with private insurers has dominated the health-care debate over the past two days.

    And according to a brand-new NBC News poll, 47% of Americans -- a plurality -- oppose the public plan, versus 43% who support it. That's a shift from last month's NBC/WSJ poll, when 46% said they backed it and 44% were opposed.

    In a follow-up question explaining the benefits and disadvantages associated with a public plan, 45% said they agreed with the description -- by supporters -- that it would help lower health-care costs and provide coverage for uninsured Americans.

    But 48% sided with opponents who say a public option would reduce access to their choice of doctors, and would lower costs by limiting medical treatment options.



    Parent
    And this is what's going wrong (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by kempis on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:27:11 PM EST
    The president who was supposed to be a great orator is in a White House that is floundering, mainly, it seems, because they want to follow the leads of their corporate donors and public opinion rather than clearly explaining to the people what a public option would be and how it would benefit them.

    This is maddening....

    Parent

    How sad, the American people bought the B.S. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:27:55 PM EST
    The losers win again.  I don't know any other way to get it through to the terrified that they are being railroaded other than forcing them all to live in Europe for a season.  The American people are absolutely terrified, they have no trust in their government, they are fear stricken.  They obviously are terrified of their government....and their government was supposed to be THEM.  European countries have governments for their people... but not America.  We act like a bunch of trauma survivors with PTSD.

    Parent
    So what? (none / 0) (#73)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:22:32 PM EST
    The polling is almost completely irrelevant.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:25:36 PM EST
    but don't you think it's going to make the blue dogs even more adamant about not having a public option and they can say that the public doesn't support it? Technically you're right but the effecdt it can have on votes can't be known yet.

    Parent
    There are enough pressureable blue dogs (none / 0) (#79)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:27:16 PM EST
    that it's guaranteed to pass the house.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:33:07 PM EST
    I wasn't really thinking about the house. I was thinking about the Senate where the problem appears to be.

    Parent
    Now kids (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:27:26 PM EST
    Don't you kno?  It's all the media's fault:

    n a speech Tuesday on Medicare to the U.S. Administration on Aging, the Health and Human Services secretary blamed the media for igniting the fire, saying that "nothing has changed" and that the administration continues to support the public option. She said that the administration will look at other ideas, too.

    Here's the key excerpt from the speech:

    "And if you were watching the news over the weekend, you probably have seen reports about the Obama administration and the public option portion of the health reform plan. All I can tell you is that Sunday must have been a very slow news day, because here's the bottom line: Absolutely nothing has changed. We continue to support the public option. That will help lower costs, give American consumers more choice and keep private insurers honest.

    "If people have other ideas about how to accomplish these goals, we'll look at those, too. But the public option is a very good way to do this. I've seen it work for state employees in states like Kansas where a public option is side-by-side with private insurers, offering competition and choice for state employees. It's what it does when it provides choice in markets that are often dominated by one insurance company, a monopoly that can charge what it wants because it has no competition.

    "And that's what we want to do in health reform: more choices, more competition. That's the bottom-line goal."



    Parent
    I hate (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:34:17 PM EST
    the media in this country. They failed to hold the media's feet to the fire and now are reaping this kind of garbage.

    Parent
    Why wouldn't public opinion matter (none / 0) (#122)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 12:06:46 AM EST
    To Senators and Congressmen?  They want to get re elected, don't they?  

    What do you think is driving it?  

    Parent

    Sadly, I agree (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 08:49:57 PM EST
    It's over.  Obama may get something or other, enough to declare a victory of sorts but it won't have a public option and it sure won't be what we had hoped for.  

    Parent
    Hate to say it, (none / 0) (#108)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 08:54:31 PM EST
    But you are right.  It's over.  Sad.  I am so bummed that they blew this.  Of course I can't say that I had any better ideas.  I'm sure they wish they had done it differently too.

    Parent
    Kennedy's situation is what truly disgusts me (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by steviez314 on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 06:12:14 PM EST
    about the Senate.

    Even though he is too sick to vote, everyone knows what his vote would be.  If he is still a Senator, and would be the 60th vote, I cannot understand why there is not a Republican Senator with honor (especially one that is retiring) who would do the right thing and vote AYE in Teddy's place instead of leaving it at 59-40.

    I know--I probably have seen too many Frank Kapra movies.

    After all, they made Sherrod Brown leave his mother's wake when they 100% knew he would be there only a few hours later.  I never understood why Voinovich just didn't vote AYE for him.  These people have no honor--they are not statesmen.

    My understanding is (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by weltec2 on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 07:10:41 PM EST
    that the Blue Dogs will vote Repug on Public Option. I wish someone would prove me wrong on this, but without the Blue Dogs, this whole public option discussion is meaningless. It was doomed to failure from the beginning.

    There are already enough blue dogs (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 07:24:50 PM EST
    who have voted for the public option on the various committees that it will probably pass the House.

    Parent
    They won't change their votes? (none / 0) (#123)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 12:11:14 AM EST
    Can they be held to those votes, even if the change their minds when they see their hometown polls?  

    Parent
    Maybe none would filibuster it (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 08:21:55 PM EST
    But I can name a couple who won't let a Senate bill containing it out of committee.  Baucus, Nelson, Conrad....

    And I will be the most amazed person in the world if it gets put into the bill during conference if it was not in the Senate bill.

    So I doubt it will come to a filibuster.

    I wish I could say (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:33:48 PM EST
    I thought none of them would.

    Go Ezra! (none / 0) (#2)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:35:52 PM EST
    Fight for the Dean 2004 Plan!  </snark>

    What's the number needed? (none / 0) (#3)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:41:38 PM EST
    Doesn't that number "60" assume that Kennedy is there and is able to vote?  Woudln't it be 59 voted needed to break a filibuster?

    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:42:50 PM EST
    3/5 of Senators sitting and sworn.

    Parent
    So then (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:45:19 PM EST
    If Kennedy isn't there, (and if he couldn't make it to his own sister's funeral, do we think he's going to be there for debate?) then isn't possible the Dems couldn't break the filibuster?

    (And I agree - if he and Byrd are too sick to do their jobs after all this time, they should resign now so a successor can be in place).

    Parent

    I think we can find one Republican (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:47:20 PM EST
    to break the filibuster: Snowe. That's what Specter promised last week. It's conceivable that Collins would vote for cloture too.

    If they have to wheel in Byrd, they can do this.

    Parent

    Not the debate, obviously (none / 0) (#111)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 09:21:06 PM EST
    The vote's the issue, not the debate.

    My guess-- unless Teddy is completely and utterly non compos mentis and has been for some time, he has not resigned because he wants to hold on long enough to cast a vote on this thing, which has really been his life's crusade.  I would expect him to come in on a stretcher on life support to cast his vote, frankly.

    Parent

    I would (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:46:35 PM EST
    guess Evan Bayh?

    Mark Pryor (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:47:28 PM EST
    Blanch Lincoln I could go on.


    Parent
    I also worry about the AR senators. (none / 0) (#23)
    by steviez314 on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:54:33 PM EST
    Obama lost AR by 20 points and they won rather easily last time.

    This might be the one real case where the Big Dog has some political heft to throw around.  Maybe a nice speech down in Hope to buck up Pryor and Lincoln if they're wavering.

    Parent

    Blanche Lincoln (none / 0) (#39)
    by mikeel on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:04:30 PM EST
    Her re-elect number sits at 27% according to PPP.  Maybe she'll recognize she'll lose anyway and do the right thing, but after her latest statements, she might not and still lose next year.

    Parent
    Oops (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:47:30 PM EST
    take that back.

    Parent
    not me (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:48:40 PM EST
    Another point to make about this (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:52:26 PM EST
    here's what Kagro says about Conference Reports:

    in the Senate, motions to proceed to consideration of conference reports are not debatable, and therefore not subject to filibuster, though  the report itself can be. But because conference reports are also not amendable, any filibuster would have to be a straight-up talkathon, as opposed to the less obvious filibuster by endless amendment (which you saw in miniature this week as the Senate worked its way through the stimulus package). That's one reason you rarely see conference reports filibustered

    If I'm reading this correctly, it might not even be possible to filibuster the public option. Just pass a Senate bill without and drop it in the conference report.

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:53:37 PM EST
    But if you are looking for any excuse to abandon fight, as Ezra and Kevin are, why let facts stand in the way?

    Parent
    Even if it could be filibustered (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:58:01 PM EST
    the Democrats retain the power to change the rules.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:57:18 PM EST
    but what are the chances of that happening? I read on anohter blog, FWIW, that in conference is when the lobbyists really get to put what they want in a bill.

    Parent
    Nancy Pelosi basically decides (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:58:29 PM EST
    what goes in the conference report.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 04:59:40 PM EST
    would she go against Obama? Frankly, that doesn't inspire confidence from me.

    Parent
    against? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CST on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:01:26 PM EST
    why would it be against obama to include a public option?

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:04:04 PM EST
    frankly does he still support one? He might not want it in the bill and if she did put it in it could be against his wishes. Or he could want to avoid the "partisan devisiveness" that would come from the public option and not want it in there.

    Parent
    Are you even paying attention? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:04:36 PM EST
    She detests Obama (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:06:07 PM EST
    That said, Obama's commitment to the public option is well, not really strong.

    Parent
    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:07:24 PM EST
    but you can think that if you want to. I'm just trying to figure out how we can get a decent bill like all the others.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:14:13 PM EST
    I think your commenting record is pretty clear  on Obama. Let me put it this way, if you do not detest him, I'd hate to read your comments if you did.

    Parent
    I detest (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:17:35 PM EST
    spineless behavior of which Obama has been exhibiting so I can see where you might get that impression. Whatever.

    Parent
    Is this really an ... (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:21:09 PM EST
    argument anymore?  Many who supported Obama from the jump have the same skepticism.

    Parent
    Certainly it is an argument (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:28:50 PM EST
    Especially when the loathing is expressed so clearly.

    Parent
    The Obama skeptics ... (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:38:51 PM EST
    have been proved correct on many points.  So why is heightened skepticism, after having initial skepticism justified, emotional?

    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:29:52 PM EST
    The opposite is also true. Do you read people like Booman and not consider his undying blind devotion for Obama?

    Parent
    Is it blind devotion (none / 0) (#120)
    by cal1942 on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 10:22:12 PM EST
    or are there not some pundits and bloggers who simply can't admit that they were wrong?
     

    Parent
    But (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:09:04 PM EST
    you have picked up on one thing right: I do detest spinelessness. I'm sick of it and all the apologia that surrounds it present company excluded.

    Parent
    commitment not strong (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by CST on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:09:40 PM EST
    in not even close to being "against"

    especially since he has been all over the tv saying he still thinks it's the best option.  That is, he may not feel he needs it, but he sure talks a lot about it for someone who doesn't want it at all, or would be against it.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:07:13 PM EST
    But having said that, there's absolutely no reason to think that he'll ask it be excluded from the conference report.

    Parent
    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:32:05 PM EST
    He certainly would ask it if he thought he could not get a bill to the Senate floor with it.

    the key is for Pelosi to tell him that she can't pass a bill without it.

    Parent

    I thought we established (none / 0) (#90)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:34:50 PM EST
    that it's pretty much guaranteed to pass in the form of a conference report.

    Or do you think he'll take the easy path just for the sake if it?

    Parent

    I do not know (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:36:34 PM EST
    He blinked on stimulus and that was actually more important for 2010 than HCR. Remember Conrad and them are going to be sayone SOMEONE (not them of course) will filibuster.


    Parent
    Fair enough (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:37:51 PM EST
    So we're calling their bluff. The House is going to pass a public option IMO.

    Parent
    Conferees of the less receptive body ... (none / 0) (#124)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 12:54:18 AM EST
    ... mostly determine what goes in the conference report.

    The Senate is the less receptive body.

    Parent

    That's not how the Republicans did it (none / 0) (#125)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 01:16:13 AM EST
    with Medicare part D.

    Parent
    Quite the opposite (none / 0) (#126)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 01:13:01 PM EST
    The Senate passed its bill by unanimous consent. The House passed by one vote after holding open the vote and arm-twisting to the threshold of bribery.

    The House was the less receptive of the two bodies.

    Rep. Bill Thomas chaired the House-Senate conference. Rep. Billy Tauzin led the drafting. And when that failed to gel in a passable compromise, Rep. Dennis Hastert stepped in, imposed his own compromise model, and took responsibility of passing it through the House -- again with votes held open, this time from 3am to 6am while arms were twisted.

    The Senate adopted the conference report more quietly, though the Senate majority had shrunk to 55 from the original UC.

    Parent

    It's that last part that you don't really (none / 0) (#127)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 02:23:17 PM EST
    have an answer for. Why were they able to get it through with 55 votes?

    The Senate could easily pass Wyden-Bennett now and send it to conference.

    Parent

    If that's your idea of a response (none / 0) (#128)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 05:19:45 PM EST
    ... I won't make any further effort to educate you.

    Parent
    I could name several (none / 0) (#33)
    by ademption on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:00:20 PM EST
    although I don't think it's going to get to that point. My answer depends heavily upon when the Senator is up for re-election. If they've got 4-6 years to think about re-election, then they don't have to worry about a primary challenge anytime soon and they think they will have enough time to get on the left's good graces again. So with that said, I think Warner, Webb, Hagen, Begich, Conrad, Tim Johnson as well as the usual suspects like Landrieu, the Nelson twins, etc. I don't care what any of them said in the past about supporting the public option. I care about actions, not words.

    But I don't even think it's going to get to that point. I don't think that the public option will reach the floor in the Senate. Harry Reid won't let it b/c as Conrad has said "there just aren't the votes for it." Reid will only bring up the Senate Finance Committee bill on the floor is my guess. My bet is that we will get Wyden-Bennett to pull GOP votes.

    Easy to say (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:04:53 PM EST
    which Dem Senator Wants the headline "__ Blocks Health Care Reform" None.

    Parent
    They can call it bipartisan (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:05:45 PM EST
    because Snowe is going to vote for whatever the deal is.

    Parent
    How will it be blocking healthcare reform (none / 0) (#51)
    by ademption on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:13:11 PM EST
    if they pass Wyden Bennett? Now it won't be real healthcare reform but which mainstream paper is going to say Ben Nelson or anyone else blocked REAL healthcare reform? Especially if they get Wyden Bennett passed? All of the mainstream papers will write glowing reports of "the success" of the Obama administration in getting a healthcare bill passed--something that FDR, LBJ and WJC could not. I can just see the headlines now....

    Parent
    No amendments to a conference report (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:15:20 PM EST
    Again, people like Drum and Klein are spreading disinformation on this subject. They either do not know or are lying. Or both.

    Parent
    They probably don't know (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:19:47 PM EST
    If I want to actually know facts about procedure and how it could relate to a situation I usually have to read here or ask andgarden.

    Parent
    You still believe in the conference report theory (none / 0) (#77)
    by ademption on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:26:42 PM EST
    that you'll be saved by the progressives in the House who would definitely not vote for legislation that didn't have a public option and everything will be fixed in the conference report huh?

    Ok, you have a lot more faith in our Congress and Senate than I do.

    I think a lot of people are going to be sorely disappointed when they wake up after a LONG night of side deal negotiations on this healthcare bill and see what Congress did. But I hope I'm wrong.

    By the way, the public option won't even be the co-op idea. I think that will be killed too. I think the "public option" will be the 5 year fallback that Olympia Snowe and Evan Bayh were talking about a few months ago....

    Parent

    Um (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:27:23 PM EST
    a conference report is not a theory.

    Parent
    Wyden-Bennett will never return from conference (none / 0) (#57)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:15:23 PM EST
    B/c House members will reject it right? (none / 0) (#92)
    by ademption on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:37:21 PM EST
    Especially the progressive caucus right? But what if the White House said that this bill would be something that Ted Kennedy would want us to support? What then? What if the sweeteners that would be added to the bill would help the constituents of that members' district? Would a Congress person want to vote against the interests of their constituent in that way?

    You obviously trust the leadership of the Democratic party not to backstab public option/healthcare reform supporters in the conference committee, right? What's your evidence in the past 2 years or so with Democratic leadership that gives you that confidence?  

    I obviously don't have that confidence...

    Parent

    The reaction against Sebelius is dispositive IMO (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:38:57 PM EST
    And everyone knows that Pelosi actually wants a stronger bill, not a weak one.

    Parent
    Some Blue Dog Senators might be ok with (none / 0) (#109)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 08:59:07 PM EST
    "Blocks public option, supports reduced costs of insurance".  Or something along those lines.


    Parent
    oh if you watched the progressives (none / 0) (#36)
    by ademption on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:03:14 PM EST
    like Weiner or Engel today on MSNBC or CNN, they both hedged whether they would support a bill that did not have a public option. I'm thinking that eventually they will if they can get some sweeteners. Think the Medicare prescription drug bill where the GOP had to bribe their members with extra goodies to get them to support the will. We're just in negotiation stage for them getting their sweeteners....

    Parent
    Sweeteners and/or major threats! n/t. (none / 0) (#118)
    by sallywally on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 10:05:09 PM EST
    VA democratic Senators (none / 0) (#106)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 08:46:23 PM EST
    I've heard that one of the VA Senators will support the public option and one will not.  Warner will not.  Webb will.  Or so I've heard.  

    I would expect the Nelson Twins will not support it, along with the Ben Nelson, the AR Senators, and possibly the Senator from ND and Bayh.  The republicans from Maine will probably vote with the Democrats.  

    Parent

    you give me cap and trade (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:15:59 PM EST
    and i will give you public option.

    Wait, I am not asking for enough, give me no new taxes on the ubers too.

    Funny, nobody mentions Baucus, (none / 0) (#85)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:30:32 PM EST
    who is awash in industry money, as a possibility.

    Hell Ben Nelson (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:33:25 PM EST
    is the most likely candidate as he absolutely needs nothing form the Dems to get elected.

    But he does need them to have power in DC.

    Parent

    I throroughly agree on Nelson (none / 0) (#96)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:40:38 PM EST
    He is useless. But Baucus and Bayh are swimming in industry money. I'll have to check Open Secrets for info on Conrad.

    Parent
    Conrad's contributors for 2010, so far (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 05:50:33 PM EST
     Industry                   Total          Indiv.     PACs
    *Lawyers/Law Firms $584,802 $468,766 $116,036
    *Securities & Investment $278,025 $167,925  $110,100
    *Health Professionals $230,033 $22,033 $208,000
    *Insurance $223,625 $65,825 $157,800
    *Lobbyists $197,792 $193,292 $4,500

    Amgen's given him $42,000

    Not bad, Kent. Tell us more about that co-op thing.

    Parent

    Bernie Sanders, for S703? (none / 0) (#110)
    by lambert on Tue Aug 18, 2009 at 09:16:19 PM EST
    Then I can vote for him in 2012!