home

From The Nobody Could Have Predicted File: President Snowe Wants Less Money For HCR

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:17:37 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Demonstrating more sociopathic indfference, Matt Yglesias is upset that President Olympia Snowe has called for less spending for health care reform. Nobody could have predicted that. It just goes to show you what imbeciles some "progressives" are about political bargaining. Honestly, they should just shut up now.

Speaking for me only

< How Stupid Are Political Reporters? | The Next Progressive Fight? What Fight? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    From The Nobody Could Have Predicted File: President Snowe Wants Less Money For HCR | 24 comments (24 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    After the Dems bow to President Snowe's (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:48:38 PM EST
    demands to put even less money in the legislation, what will be her next demand? Can't wait until she demands that Obama move out of the WH so she can move in. I think he might draw a line in the sand on that demand.  

    BTW, I love this comment to (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:54:43 PM EST
    Matt's post.

    so, Snowe's not so bright ?

    Currently the Dems are bowing and scraping to Snowe's every whim and somehow this is perceived as Snowe not being very bright.

    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Left of the Left on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 04:55:55 PM EST
    What good is intelligence without the guts to use it. Ignorance is winning this debate so far. In the end we'll probably be left wondering what went wrong all over again.

    We're smart, we're right, surely that's enough.

    Parent

    Who is smarter in the political arena? (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 05:09:12 PM EST
    The person who asks for all and gives nothing in return.

    Or the person who gives all and asks for nothing in return.

    Parent

    I hate to say it (none / 0) (#10)
    by SGITR on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:00:23 PM EST
    but it's true. Without Republican votes somewhere along the way (thanks to the Blue Dogs) we never were going to get what it is we wanted. The rules of the Senate just dictate that. And even reconciliation is filled with all kinds of not so secret devices that would allow the Republicans ample opportunity to nix a bill there too.

    So obviously we had two choices. One was to put a ideal bill up for vote on the floor that was guaranteed to lose, or try to win some Republican votes that cost us some palatable concessions.

    Unfortunately the concessions that are being asked weaken the goal to the extreme and we have a President and congressional leadership who are more interested in a symbolic win than real progress. So it never really was reality that we would get anything worthwhile. Which is why our ace in the hole was to have the Progressives in the House submarine the entire process.

    Parent

    To negotiate effectively you (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:29:31 PM EST
    need get something (a vote or votes) in return for your concessions. The Dems keep giving concessions and have yet to get one Republican to commit to voting on the legislation. IMO the Republicans aren't going to vote for any legislation. They are having too much fun making fools out of the Dems.

    Democrats IMO had more choices than what you described. They could have started negotiations from a stronger position by leading with an ideal bill and negotiating downward only after receiving something in return from the Republicans. No votes - no changes to the bills. Fairly early in the process the Republicans made it clear that they were not going to vote for HCR. At what point do Dems realize that removing everything worthwhile out of the bill is not going to result in Republicans votes.

     

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:59:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Heh, channeling Somersby. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Faust on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:42:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Personally, I like to think (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:46:30 PM EST
    Somersby is channeling me.:-)

    Parent
    Sorry if this has been covered before, (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Spamlet on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 04:33:38 PM EST
    but are President Snowe's constituents among the American majority who want to see a robust public option in the eventual bill?

    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 05:18:50 PM EST
    I do know that in '06 Snowe garnered 74% of the vote. The only Senator to get a larger percentage was a Republican who ran unopposed.  She is not up for reelection until '12 and due to her popularity, I doubt she feels any pressure to do anything other than what she is doing.

    Parent
    What I don't understand is (none / 0) (#12)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:03:52 PM EST
    does Reid really want to lose his job? The guy is in the toss up category at this point and for all intents and purposes appears to be playing footsie rather than telling Obama that catering to one Senator from the oppositions side is pretty dumb.

    I still say if progressives want to apply pressure HE'D make more sense then Snowe, Either that or if you MUST try to twist arms at least pick someone who might be vulnerable like Burris from NC.

    Parent

    He's more worried (none / 0) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 10:40:32 PM EST
    about losing his job as senator than he is about losing his job as majority leader.  He's in very big trouble in Nevada.

    Parent
    You'd think that progressives would (none / 0) (#21)
    by cawaltz on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 12:16:13 AM EST
    exploit that. You have things that Harry needs like time and resources. It seems incredibly counterproductive of him to tick off the base he needs to rely on and considering that over half a million people in Nevada don't have health care you'd think Senator Reid would be smarter and endorse a plan that a clear majority prefer instead of encouraging the wishy washy approach of Baucus and Snowe.

    Parent
    She's kind of like (none / 0) (#18)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 10:39:17 PM EST
    Bernie Sanders in Vermont.  The voters may or may not entirely approve of this or that position on various issues, but like Bernie, she's deeply embedded in her state's consciousness and culture.  She's theirs, and they like her personally and are proud of her.

    Why an outspoken Jewish socialist who still sports a strong Brooklyn accent has become so deeply embedded in Vermont's economically quite conservative culture is a mystery a little more difficult to explain.


    Parent

    Olympia Snowe's Republican (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 04:36:44 PM EST
    colleagues must just love her.  They get their no votes for the folks back home, inflict what they hope will be great political damage, and satisfy their big pharma/insurance patrons. Meanwhile, Snowe does their bidding knowing that in the likelihood that some bill passes, it will be a Republican one.  

    So Snowe controls the bill? (none / 0) (#1)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 03:25:57 PM EST
    It is well past time for Reconciliation.

    Reconciliation (none / 0) (#13)
    by SGITR on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:03:53 PM EST
    is no given. Don't believe it is as easy as some people want to make it out to be. There are many ways for the Republicans to kill a reconciliation bill. The last of which is voting down the bill that comes out of conference. Which is easy to do when we don't have 60 Democrats on our side.

    Parent
    I wonder if you understand (none / 0) (#20)
    by Spamlet on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 12:01:57 AM EST
    how reconciliation actually works. BTD and others have covered it in many previous posts.

    Parent
    The point of reconciliation (none / 0) (#22)
    by cawaltz on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 12:18:30 AM EST
    is to bypass needing the 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. It limits the amount of time and amendments that can be added to a bill. They don't need 60, just a simple majority.

    Parent
    There are some fine points, too (none / 0) (#23)
    by Spamlet on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 01:06:55 AM EST
    They're worth understanding with respect to HCR.

    Parent
    where's the 900 billion? (none / 0) (#11)
    by diogenes on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:00:58 PM EST
    If Obama promises to "not raise the deficit by one dime" and current bills raise costs by 900 billion, then obviously you have to make cuts unless you're saying that Obama is a liar.

    or you could increase taxes (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 06:05:27 PM EST
    on the upper half of the income level who control most of the wealth in the country. Cutting isn't the only solution.

    Parent
    raise taxes on upper half? (none / 0) (#24)
    by diogenes on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 08:43:03 AM EST
    The upper half are only not those who make "over 250,000".  Either way, you're making Obama out to be a liar.  We wouldn't want to do that, would we?

    Parent
    From The Nobody Could Have Predicted File: President Snowe Wants Less Money For HCR | 24 comments (24 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment