The Smoke Clears: Conrad Is the Anti-PO Leader In The Senate

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:01:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

While Max Baucus continues to look like a fool, the smoke has certainly cleared on Kent Conrad - he is a vehement opponent of a public option and always has been. All his protestations to the contrary, in the words of Don Corleone, it was always Conrad.

The interesting news, after the Schumer Amendment failed by 10-13, is that 10 (11 if one is to believe Baucus' rationalizations) of the 13 Democrats on the most conservative committee in all of the Congress, the Senate Finance Committee, support some form of a public option.

What's left of interest in the Finance Committee? To me a declaration when the final bull (Freudian slip, "bill" for "bull") is voted on that in fact BaucusCare is DOA. Indeed, I would love for Rockefeller to vote No on it and intone, in open mockery of Baucus, that he is voting no on the bill because it does not have 60 votes.

Not a winning day today, but, all in all, not a terrible day either.

Speaking for me only

< Roman Polanski Files Bail Request | Endgame On HCR >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Smoke Clears: Conrad Is the Anti-PO Leader In The Senate | 44 comments (44 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

You summarize the landscape superbly, (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by ChiTownDenny on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:10:01 PM EST

Mr. ROCKSTAR BTD!

: Put another way, (none / 0) (#12)
by ChiTownDenny on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:28:05 PM EST

I agree with you. (How'd that happen?) ;)

The liberals on the committee (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:18:06 PM EST

have some bargaining power. They can say, "look, you don't have my vote to report out this piece of trash unless you get the majority leader to agree that the bill debated on the floor will include a public option."

Yep (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:20:19 PM EST

10 votes in the Finance Committee in the face of Public Options everywhere else.

The Finance Committee bill, aka Baucus Care is definitely isolated.

This should give some spine to the Progressive Caucus in the House.


Well but (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Steve M on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:26:35 PM EST

what is the punch line to that strategy? Nothing gets reported out at all, and health care continues to be stalled?

I don't know if we can afford this sort of brinkmanship with someone like Kent Conrad who really doesn't care one bit if HCR passes.


I agree (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:28:50 PM EST

But I also think HOW it is voted out matters.

I think Rockefeller has earned the right to vote No and pontificate about how BaucusCare is DOA.

The rest can vote yes and say they will not vote for it on the floor.


Depends on the rules of the committee (none / 0) (#17)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:33:48 PM EST

Baucus might have to settle for "reported out without recommendation" (if that's available).


Why? (none / 0) (#21)
by Steve M on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:38:00 PM EST

What if he settles for reporting out nothing? What if he says "okay, back to the drawing board"? Where is the urgency that requires him to report out some bill, any bill, right now? I don't understand what leverage we have over Baucus.


His ego (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:39:04 PM EST

I assume, based on his actions, (none / 0) (#24)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:40:49 PM EST

that he actually wants to get something done. If he doesn't, then he is an obstructionist acting against the will of the majority of his caucus, and he should be removed from his chairmanship.


Well gosh (none / 0) (#25)
by Steve M on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:43:22 PM EST

you and I calling for Baucus to be removed from his chairmanship doesn't really add up to much, unfortunately.

I really don't think that if Baucus says "back to the drawing board" that somehow a bolt of lightning will strike him down. The Senate is being cautious about this as it is.


Now you go too far, If Baucus says (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:46:05 PM EST

back to the drawing board, Obama will actually get off his a**.

You know that there is no way Baucus says that.


I don't know that (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Steve M on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:49:18 PM EST

but I hope you are right. I just worry that there is a greater constituency for putting off this fight than we imagine.


Didn't the Pres. say he had to have (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by oculus on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 04:12:10 PM EST

a bill on his desk by Aug. 09?


: Sure. (none / 0) (#39)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 07:10:51 PM EST

He also said he had to have one before the recess. What Obama says appears to have little relevance to much of anything on this.

If you don't know that (none / 0) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:53:43 PM EST

then you should stop commenting on politics altogether.

Hell, if he does say that, I will give up blogging forever.

Now, of course the Dems will pass this crap bill out of Finance, we both know that.

The question is HOW it gets passed out.

12-11 with protest votes promising NOT to vote for it on the floor?

Or does Baucus get Snowe? See, we need to hope she votes No. Cuz then all you do is take the financing portions of the bill and throw out most everything else about it.

If she votes Yes, Baucus is back in the game. I think she is a no vote myself.


Maybe I should stop (5.00 / 5) (#33)
by Steve M on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:59:05 PM EST

but if not for people like me who are wrong, what would be the point of your being right?


: I do not need a peanut gallery (none / 0) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 04:03:01 PM EST

but seriously, you KNOW he is not going to say that.
Could you imagine the uproar if he did?

: Kudos for a superbly measured response! (none / 0) (#37)
by oculus on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 04:14:16 PM EST

: If not for people wooing BTD (none / 0) (#43)
by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 09:28:39 PM EST

into deeper conversations I wouldn't even know what the hell he was talking about when it comes to bill passage.

The wild card (none / 0) (#26)
by jbindc on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:44:27 PM EST

Where is the urgency that requires him to report out some bill, any bill, right now?

Obama promised a bill after the August recesess. It's now almost October, and only a few weeks left in the legislative year, and then come January, we are in an election year. They want something done before then or it won't get done.


I'm glad that you understand (none / 0) (#42)
by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 09:25:09 PM EST

how all this goes down, cuz I got nuthin else that I grasp.


Shorter Baucus: (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by steviez314 on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:19:42 PM EST

"I can't be the 60th vote for it, because it doesn't have 60 votes."

The Senate is an undecidable set of morons (Godel's unpublished theorem).

I think he still has sugar plums of (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:27:23 PM EST

being the dealmaker dancing in his head.

He is in a delusional state.

No one's image has suffered more publically in all this than Max Baucus.

Event he Villagers are laughing at him.

I think it is time for him to take that cushy lobbyist job.


: Grassley (none / 0) (#40)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 07:12:07 PM EST

Giving him a run for his money on image, IMO.

Take this for what it's worth (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by jbindc on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:24:21 PM EST

According to a "Senate source" (who told Rich Lowry of the National Review), Harry Reid will vote against a health-care bill.

That's the prediction of a source in the Senate. He thinks Reid will certainly vote for cloture, but that the bill will be so unpopular--and his own standing in Nevada so precarious--that he'll vote against it on final passage, especially if--as seems likely--the sweetheart deal for Nevada on Medicaid is eventually stripped out.

Yep Rich Lowry is the go to guy on Reid (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:25:37 PM EST

It was not even worth the space of your comment.

See if you can avoid such comments in the future.


Did Lowry see starbursts when he heard that? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by steviez314 on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:46:55 PM EST

Well, then (none / 0) (#16)
by jbindc on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:33:19 PM EST

How about a comment from AP that counters your point that you think BaucusCare is dead?

The votes marked a victory for Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee chairman, who is hoping to push his middle-of-the-road measure through the panel by week's end. It also kept alive the possibility that at least one Republican may yet swing behind the overhaul, a key goal

Pffft (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:34:52 PM EST

AP knows as much as Lowry.

Please stop wasting space.

Today was a TERRIBLE day for Baucus.

He is out of the deal making now.


Which one Republican is that? (none / 0) (#18)
by andgarden on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:34:29 PM EST

: Olympia Snowe (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:36:16 PM EST

of course.
I wonder if she'll come through for him.
I doubt it cuz she should have been there with him the day he announced this travesty.
Baucus, Conrad, Snowe and Lincoln would have made the Villagers squeal in delight.

To paraphrase Conrad (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by gtesta on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:31:25 PM EST

The Schumer amendment accomplishes everything that I want a co-op to do, but I can't support it because it is not a co-op.

: Heh (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:32:16 PM EST

There's no "looking like" (none / 0) (#2)
by scribe on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:11:39 PM EST

when it comes to Baucus as fool. "Is" is the word, under any definition of what "is" is.

: Just need to get "something" (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by ChiTownDenny on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:19:10 PM EST

out of the Finance Committee. Baucus "is" a fool is less an issue than Conrad "IS" is a fool. Let the primarying begin. Away, DINOs.

Voting against Schumer's amendment (none / 0) (#7)
by MO Blue on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:22:45 PM EST

Again, all ten Republicans on the committee voted against the public option. Only three Democrats (Kent Conrad, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln) joined them in opposing Schumer's public option. http://tinyurl.com/yepnvzg

On Schumer's amendment (none / 0) (#23)
by MO Blue on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:40:13 PM EST

Once again senators Blanche Lincoln and Olympia Snowe did not speak about the issue of the public option. On arguably the most heated and important issue in health care reform, these two Senators didn't feel any obligation to publicly explain their opposition.
FDL

On Rockefeller's amendment:

Olympia Snowe, Thomas Carper, and Blanche Lincoln cannot be bothered to publicly debate one of the committee's most important amendments. It seems neither Olympia Snowe, Thomas Carper, nor Blanche Lincoln thought they needed to explain their opposition to a robust public option in the official Senate record.
FDL

Yep (none / 0) (#31)
by TheRealFrank on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:54:45 PM EST

Here are the possible outcomes after the Baucus show is over (how much longer will they take anyway?):

Step 0 is of course conference. Then, depending on the bill that comes out of that (e.g. with PO or not):

Bill with PO. Reconciliation. It seems that this isn't going to happen. Reid doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to do it. I don't see others stepping up to force it.
Bill with trigger. That could well happen, unfortunately.
Bill with PO, where all 60 Dems vote for cloture, but only 50+1 or a few more vote for the bill.

At this point, it seems that Baucus might even vote for a final bill with PO, with some arm-twisting. After his dog and pony show is over, he doesn't seem to be the main problem. However, in case 3) the problem cases might be Ben Nelson, Lieberman, Lincoln or even Conrad. If you look at Conrad's statements today, he is turning out to be big, weasely problem.

As an aside: the Senate is a useless, obstructionist body where states with few inhabitants have a ridiculous amount of power.

Like I wrote (none / 0) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 03:56:19 PM EST

It was always Conrad.

He is the Barzini of this opera.


So when do we settle all family business? (none / 0) (#36)
by steviez314 on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 04:13:58 PM EST

Who wants to play the Godfather? (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 04:16:44 PM EST

Hopefully Pelosi.


Go Nancy (none / 0) (#41)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 07:14:36 PM EST

Question is whether she's willing to take the risk of going down fighting on this. Looks like Rockefeller finally has found something to take that risk on.


: But you don't go down fighting this (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 09:32:11 PM EST

(from what I'm understanding) if you are Pelosi. You go UP fighting this...up in polls...up in recognized flexed muscle. You go UP