Ben Nelson: Now More Conservative Than Ever
If you read this site fairly regularly, you might be thinking that President Obama is having some issues with the Senate. And you'd be correct. Here's an abbreviated list of hurdles: Dawn Johnsen can't be confirmed to head the Office of Legal Counsel; health care reform may have to do without a public option--if it happens at all; and Obama's goal of shuttering the Guantanamo Bay detention center by early 2010 is suddenly imperiled by the common cousins of conservative demagoguery and Democratic sheepishness.
The examples are manifold. And the voices of opposition are united.
"No way I can vote for her," says a senator of Dawn Johnsen.
Seeking to protect health insurance companies, which would be hard pressed to compete with a government provider, one senator called the idea of a publicly run insurance option a "deal breaker."
And on Guantanamo, the voice of the opposition in the Senate can be summed up thusly: "I think they need to be kept elsewhere, wherever that is. I don't want to see them come on American soil."
These aren't the idle protestations of embattled Republican leaders, though. They're the proclamations of the Democratic senator from Nebraska.
That's not entirely surprising. Ben Nelson is conservative and pro-life and has always been something of a spoiler for liberals. But since he took the lead in watering down the stimulus bill in the early days of the 111th Congress, he's been, if anything, more invested in the idea of blocking the progressive agenda than ever--and Senate math is on his side.
With Al Franken still yet to be seated, the Democrats are stuck with a 59-member caucus--one shy of the mythical 60, which could, in theory, make the party immune to Republican filibusters. The problem is, theory and practice don't actually match up.
In the months since the stimulus bill passed, Nelson voted against the President's budget, and is now holding out on Johnsen, trying to neuter health reform efforts, and positioning himself to complicate the President's long-term plan to close down the GITMO prison.
If Nelson were to relent on Johnsen--as he did for such Bush-era luminaries as Stephen Johnson and John Bolton--the Democrats would probably have 60 votes for cloture, and certainly more than 51 for confirmation. If he were to support a public health insurance option of some sort, the Democrats would be much better positioned than they are to pass health reform through regular order, rather than through the budget reconciliation process, which would circumvent the filibuster, but present other procedural complications. And if he hadn't decided to stake out this new position on Guantanamo detainees, Obama could breathe a little easier about his ability to secure closure funds this summer.
Yesterday, on Fox News Sunday, Nelson reserved himself the right to support a filibuster of Obama's first Supreme Court nominee. In 2005, Nelson was part of the so-called Gang of 14 senators who teamed up to end filibustering of judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances.
But Nelson's predictable posturing makes it such that, even with Al Franken's vote, the Democrats will need to find at least one Republican willing to cross the aisle vote for cloture on most of Obama's major initiatives. And that's a species of Republican that's becoming more and more rare every week.
Josh
Matt
Eric
One word: Reconciliation.
May 25, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone needs to remind the Senate repuglicans that once before the public got so fed up with their lying bull$h1t, they ended up with a caucus of only 16 out of 48. And history has a nasty habit of repeating itself especially for those who didn't learn the lesson the first time.
May 25, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, and the Dems better use it to secure a public heath care option because it is the sine qua non of a successful Obama Administration.
May 25, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Democratic Senators,
You have collectively been a roadblock to the progress of this country for decades. After I work hard to elect a second Democratic Senator in 2010, my attention will turn to primaries in other states where we currently have a yellow-streaked Democratic Senator.
I am not alone. History is not on your side.
Sincerely,
A member of the Democratic Party AND a Midwest Activist
May 25, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rock on. My South Carolina senate delegation is a lost cause, but my money's with you.
May 25, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bear in mind, however, that the democratic senators were the only thing between George Bush and complete control of the Federal government between 2001 and 2006. Having the majority teetering on a knife's edge - and making the Republicans earn 60 votes to move anything -- was a key reason why the Republicans were stymied on some of their most disastrous plans like privatization of social security.
Much as we complain about Harry Reid -- and there are justified reasons for complaints -- he's lead the party from a point where the party's leader was defeated for reelection (Daschle) to a point where we outnumber the opposition by 3:2. We have not been able to get solid party unity, but people like Nelson's power is entirely based on their ability to prevent cloture. Nelson should have an (N) after his name -- the only party he belongs to is a party with his name on it.
May 25, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Lead" or "followed"? Looks more like the latter from where I sit.
May 26, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think someone in the GOP has something on Nelson. That's the only reason for this nonsense - going a against a very popular DEM President? Your own? Wow! I don't expect 100% agreement but these are serious issues he is knocking down. Is he up for re-election?
May 25, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nelson was a two-term Democratic governor and then was elected to the Senate in 2000 so it seems he'll be up again in 2012.
What's touchy in Nebraska is that a two-term Republican governor was elected to the Senate in 2008 and the state went to McCain by a fairly healthy amount.
May 25, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Nelson is senile. He endorsed Obama early on, campaigned for him. But he's tried to thwart him at every turn as president. And his positions make no sense.
May 25, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm from Nebraska and I've never liked Ben Nelson, but I've become increasingly infuriated with him in recent years, first for his strong support of Bush and now for his complete lack of support for Barack Obama.
Nelson is a Democrat in name only (and he is terrified of reminding Nebraskans of that). I generally grit my teeth and vote for him, because I figure he'd be better than a Republican. I imagine that many Democrats do that. And I'm sure he expects that Democrats won't have any choice, so he's free to appeal to as many conservative Republicans as he can. But I don't know if I can continue to do that. I think I'll just skip that race on the ballot next time.
This is a tough state for Democrats, even after eight years of Bush/Cheney. And I must admit that I don't give any money to the Nebraska Democratic Party, because I don't want a dime of it going to help re-elect Ben Nelson.
May 25, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is he a Democrat? Is this a case like that of Specter, who (some Pennsylvanians have said) became a Republican because he could not get on the ticket as a Democrat?
Since Nelson seems to share none of the core principles of the Democratic Party, it's hard to see any reason for him to be in the party, beyond naked opportunism.
Thanks.
mp
May 25, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
WCG,
funny thing, as much acid as Joe Lieberman has been taking for his recent antics, his voting record, from a Democratic/Progressive viewpoint, is exponentially better than that cretin Ben Nelson.
May 25, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nelson looks like one of those crooked TV preachers, who keep 95% of their donations for personal use.
Obama is going to be very hamstrung by Democrats like this and with the incumbent advantage it will be very difficult to get rid of these phony Democrats.
May 25, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
A TV preacher or a Republican comb-over - or both.
These bible-thumping pea-pickers are all the same, regardless of party affiliation.
Scum.
May 25, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in my 60's and thinking of becoming a mobile activist, i.e., moving to states like Nebraska in 2011 to do everything possible to get a real Democrat in the primary.
Only if Nelson realizes that he will be challenged by a populist Democrat will he begin to work with "his" party rather than the opposition. (Unless he is senile, then the only option is to get him out of there and find a Democrat who would be able to carry Nebraska.)
May 25, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Democrats (or DINOs) like Nelson who come from solid red states and districts have to understand is that if the next election becomes a Republican wave election, like 1994, they will be the first to lose, just as moderate Republicans running in blue districts and states were the first to lose in 2006 and 2008. The only way this becomes a Republican wave election is if the Democrats, despite controlling Congress and the White House, can't get anything good done for working families (as the defeat of health care reform showed in 1994).
So for Nelson and his ilk, the only way to ensure their reelection is not to be an obstructionist and stop his fellow Democrats from accomplishing some good. His smartest political strategy would be to vote for cloture on all GOP-led filibusters and then show his conservative bona fides by voting against the legislation.
Let the Democrats prove they can govern and meet the American people's needs. That must be priority #1 for Nelson.
May 25, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
As always we sit back & expect Obama through his magnificence to change things all by his lonesome.Well folks,this is our country,we the people must get organize & support someone in Nebraska to primary Nelson.Remember Obama's constant refrain,"I can do it alone,I need your help for change".Well surely someone on this site much more educated than me in organizing efforts can start some kind of fund or campaign to get a good democrat from Nebraska in the Senate.Like the one poster above who is willing to become mobile,go state to state & campaign against these crooked Dems.Let's do something folks.We must not let this opportunity to leave a better America for our kids slide by & for chrissakes! let's start now.
May 25, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do we need more Democrats-In-Name-Only? NO! Jeez, what the hell is it with these guys. Don't they understand that when you belong to a Party you believe in and support that Party's platform and principles? Otherwise, switch. Let him change to a Republican't or Independnut.
Can't he be kicked out of the party? Harry Reid should force him out. Today.
May 25, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leave the purges to the Grand Obsolete Party
I'd like to think he's just setting himself up to be a dealmaker....either way, he's best ignored
Call his bluff
May 25, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's probably just plain bought. Get rid of him. Better a junior Republican with no power base than a senior Democrat able to do great harm. The party needs new blood. Find a young Democrat to run against him in the primary. If nothing else, make it very costly for him to keep the seat.
May 25, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Y'know? Though I'm generally opposed to the urge to purge from your wing of the party, in Nelson's case, and as long as we're nowhere near 50, I absolutely, totally agree with your logic here. Better a powerless junior Republican from Nebraska than a Republican trojan horse like Nelson with seniority. There's little chance that a liberal who beat Nelson in a primary could win in Nebraska, but who knows? Maybe the Republican would get caught in bed with a corpse or a sheep or something before election day.
May 25, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at Iowa next door. They routinely elect both Grassley and Harkin, one of the very most liberal Senators in Congress. They're both authentic Iowans. People overlook a lot of ideology if the candidate can make a connection. Democrats need to do a better job of finding the right kind (i.e. the left kind) of populists. (Of course, that is the last thing the party leadership wants.)
May 25, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is all happening because no one fears Obama.
if obama is progressive then he needs to forget the republicans and this guy and force his agenda through and take no prisoners.
or, maybe he doesnt mind this stuff....
May 25, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the definition of a Progressive? take no prisoners? Hmmm...who does that sound like?
May 25, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is this small thing in the Constitution about Congress passing the legislation; then the President can sign it into law.
May 25, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't sound familiar with the 60-vote rule in the Senate?
May 26, 2009 4:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I emailed him a while ago telling him that although I wasn't from his state, that if he continued his obstructionist ways, I would be donating liberally to his primary opponent.
Figured it couldn't hurt.
May 25, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Senate got a nice national wake up call with the executive order to close Gitmo. They can only exist in contrast to Obama after that one. I do not see that as changing.
If you can say Obama has problems with the Senate now, the momentum and voters are kind of with him and several who obstruct may get taken out in 2010.
I do not see someone like Ben Nelson specifically as the problem. He has no reason to stick his neck out on any particular issue. But...PUT THE PRESSURE ON THE SENATE. They are the largest hurdle to health care reform.
May 25, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need term limits. That way these lobbyist can't buy every single Senator everytime. These guys care about nothing but reelection and they are bought.
May 25, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
We HAVE TERM LIMITS. Democracies call them ELECTIONS. Don't get lazy.
May 25, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but usually about 90 percent of politicans get re-elected so that dosen't help. Yeah you need term limits because some of these guys (like Nelson) won't get voted out, the only way to get guys like him out of Congress is by force (by force, I mean term limits).
May 25, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Squeeze the bastard. He's Domestic Lieberman.
May 25, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is time. It is time to take out the yellow belly Democrats, one seat at a time. 2010 Hairball Reid. 2012 Ben-dover Nelson.
May 25, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the Dems actually have 58 Dem Senators not 59. teeheeheeheeeee!
May 25, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Screw Ben Nelson: Health care reconciliation!!!!
May 25, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Harry Reid ever learnt how to say "Boo" to a goose, Ben Nelson would be irrelevant. Sadly, doesn't look likely.
I saw Ben Nelson on Rachel Maddow's show a few months ago explaining why he was opposed to education money (to repair crumbling schools, iirc) in the stimulus package. I simply could not believe how stupid he is. Sack of doorknobs territory.
May 25, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Nelson is from Nebraska. Omaha's major industry with money to spend is insurance companies. Nelson needs their money, so of course he will deliver a defeat of health care reform in return for that money. The only way we could nullify the power of the insurance companies is to mount a major campaign donation effort either to buy Nelson or a suitable opponent for him.
Our Congressional folks are largely all for sale. We need to get into that market and buy them.
May 25, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes on reconciliation.
Also, I'm considering donating to Nelson's Republican opponents just to get him out of the seniority system
May 25, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our Congressional folks are largely all for sale. We need to get into that market and buy them.
precisely - Bit took less than half a million from the health insurers to buy Max Baucus. We contributed way more than that to Ned Lamont.
May 25, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing that Obama is not conservative enough. We basically have one ruling neoliberal party of so-called Democrats and Repubs. This democracy is a fucking joke.
May 25, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nelson is corrupt. It's just a matter of finding out in whose pay he is. His posturing isn't about principles, it's probably about being in the pay of insurance companies and protecting their financial interests. Follow the money. Find his problem, make him talk about his problem. He is unclean. Get a spot light on his contributors. He's probably Ted Stevens of the Plains.
May 25, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't subscribe to liberal or progressive or Democratic ideological purity, but there is a limit. Joe Lieberman and Arlen Specter are at that limit, Ben Nelson is way beyond. Let him go. Somebody please run against him in the Dem primary. If we don't beat him (and we probably wouldn't), maybe we can weaken him enough to lose to the Republican. We'd be no worse off than we are now.
Lark
May 25, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nelson's predictable posturing makes it such that, even with Al Franken's vote, the Democrats will need to find at least one Republican willing to cross the aisle vote for cloture on most of Obama's major initiatives.
Let it Snowe, let it Snowe, let it Snowe.
May 25, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
At some point, the national party needs to draw a line in the sand with Nelson.
If he is going to block Obama's nominations using a filibuster, I think Obama should try to get him kicked out of the party. Or effectively kicked out of the party.
Seriously, does the party demand any loyalty whatsoever? We are close to witnessing
a) Nelson demanding that Democrats not use the filibuster against Bush nominations
b) Nelson using the filibuster against Obama nominations.
As far as I'm concerned, that's enough. That shows that he is more loyal to the Republicans than the Democrats.
May 25, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sooooooooo tired and DINO's and threats of the 'F' word. Let Nelson and his Republican colleagues filibuster the nominations and then make them explain why they are tying up the Senate and for what reason(s)...I'm sure you'll see the impasse end. Can we trade Nelson for Snowe or Collins? Seriously I am all for a big tent but Nelson is no different than former 'D' Sen. Shelby.
May 25, 2009 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You gain a Dem with Specter, you lose one with Nelson. It is politics, after all.
May 26, 2009 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nelson is enjoying his time in the spotlight, like Burr and the VA nomination. He can only play both sides for so long.
May 26, 2009 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nelson is a whore. Plain and simple. He's on the block and available to the highest bidder. This is the kind of Democrat we need to see out of the Senate even if replaced by a Republican becuase there's no difference except that Democrats can't openly go after Nelson because of the D after his name. Let's change that.
May 26, 2009 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oleeb,
exactly right, go after him. Unfortunately we have no leaders in the Democratic party with balls enough to do what's needed. Its amazing how far this guy can push the envelope while it seems Harry Reid and Durbin stand by with their d***s in their hands.
Speaking of Reid, we need a leader who is more aggressive than this guy, he's a eunich.
Could someone like Nelson exist with a more aggressive Senate Leader and Whip?
May 26, 2009 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nebraskans had their chance for a "Progressive" candidate for the Senate in 2008 w Scott Kleeb.
May 26, 2009 4:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just offer to put a multi-million dollar government health insurance claims-processing center with thousands of jobs near Omaha. That'll solve that problem. Roll him on the rest.
May 26, 2009 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
--== Matchcougar.C'om ==-- Best Cougar dating site in the world!
For Cougars, dating a younger man can be exciting and feel younger. And also you may find yourself more compatible with young men.
For younger men, dating an older woman has numerous advantages. You can sometimes learn valuable advice from her on how to conduct himself in a difficult situation. She is your best listener and supporter.
Join us and contact tens of thousands of cougars and cougar admirers!!!
May 26, 2009 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink