TPMDC
Lincoln Won't Commit To Cloture
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Share
Send to a friend!
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) has not committed to supporting a vote on a health care reform bill, Greg Sargent reports today.
When asked if she would vote yes on a procedural motion (cloture) to bring the bill to a vote, a spokeswoman said Lincoln "has not committed her vote to anyone."
Democrats will need 60 votes, the entire caucus, to break an expected Republican filibuster.
Lincoln, a moderate Democrat who opposes the public option, "will have to see the legislative language and cost first and will evaluate it based on its impact on Arkansans," before she decides how to vote, her spokeswoman said.
Comments (37) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
TaraV
October 26, 2009 1:44 PM
Knowing what we do about Reid, I find it very difficult to believe that he doesn't have this issue sewn up pretty tight. This is the not the guy to take the chance on the public option against all odds....a gunfighter at the OK corral he is not. So Reid is pretty confident about how Lincoln will vote on cloture even if her camp is making ambiguous statements.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
October 26, 2009 1:45 PM
Well, does the existence of the caucus have any real meaning or not? If it does, it should not be possible for any Senator to block a vote on one of the party's leading priorities without being stripped of all chairmanships. Let them vote no on the actual bill if they must (we only need 50 + Biden), but if they don't vote for cloture they are functionally NOT members of the Democratic caucus and should be dealt with accordingly. Just because we don't have a parliamentary system doesn't mean you can allow party discipline to dwindle to absolutely nothing- it's not possible to govern that way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 26, 2009 2:00 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
absolutely
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
October 26, 2009 2:01 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Lawrence O'Donnell has said that party is almost all a myth in the Senate. There's just not much you can do to people. But if there is any exception to that; this vote must be one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
October 26, 2009 2:13 PM in reply to Overreach THIS!
However in this case Lincoln is up for re-election in 2010 and is at real risk. However on the whole O'Donnell is right, 6 year terms and there is great power in incumbancy and no real chance at primary challenging given the war chests most have built up. So either the party supports the "Democrat" or they lose the seat and even the worst Democrat votes with the party 55-60% of the time.
This vote is a special case though. Lieberman, Nelson and Landrieu are the biggest wildcards - Lieberscum because he is Lieberscum, Nelson because Nebraska is against the Public Option and Landrieu because she was just re-elected and thus is untouchable now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
October 26, 2009 2:22 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
And she'll get a Big Dog campaign stop if she plays along and they'll just shrug and let her seat go if she doesn't? I am *not* being snotty here; just asking, is that your thinking?
Her statement gives her plenty of room to vote for cloture, of course, and I have a hunch she will, as you say. Then probably vote against the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
October 26, 2009 3:10 PM in reply to Overreach THIS!
Don't think so. No matter how unreliable her vote is, a Republican would be worse, and she knows it. They're not going to let that seat flip and there's no point in making empty threats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
October 26, 2009 3:37 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
I'm no longer willing to accept the assertion that a Republican would be worse without learning more. I'm going to start taking a serious look at the opponents of some of these conservative Democrats. If their positions aren't too far from the conservative Democrat, I might make a small contribution to the Republican.
If the Democrats aren't willing to hold their caucus together to take advantage of their super majority, then there's no point in them having it. In fact, with some conservative Democrats unwilling to vote against a Republican filibuster without a Republican on board, having a couple moderate Republicans in the Senate might be better than having a Democratic super majority.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
October 26, 2009 4:56 PM in reply to QuiteAlarmed
You already have some moderate Republicans in the Senate. This is Arkansas we're talking about. What do you think the chances are of electing a Republican in AK whose vote you'd have a better chance of getting than Snowe or Collins?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
October 26, 2009 5:17 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
I don't know, but I'm not going to make any assumptions. I'll take a look at the opponents of the conservative Democrats and then decide.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
October 26, 2009 3:19 PM in reply to Overreach THIS!
In this case I think so. This is a HUGE pillar of the Dem platform and if the Dems can't get it passed with 60 votes in their caucus then 60 votes is useless. Furthermore if Reid thinks he has the votes and takes the PO to vote and it is successfully fillibustered there would be a real chance it would have to start again back at square one and would be a 2010 killer for the Dems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
October 26, 2009 4:25 PM in reply to Overreach THIS!
If Blanche filibusters this bill her political career will be over, but it won't be because the Democratic political establishment abandoned her. It will be because....
1) Democratic voters as a whole will be demoralized and won't turn out for their Democratic Senators/Congressmen and,
2) Arkansas Democratic voters in particular will be enraged against her while
3) Arkansas Republican voters will be fired up against her.
Moreover within Democratic circles she would be seen as a weak-kneed traitor, and no Dems would vote for her in any other political office.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
_jonny_5_
October 26, 2009 5:12 PM in reply to Darrius
Exactly...
She is worried about a Moderate-to-conservative voter backlash thus killing her chance to be re-elected.
But if she vots against the HCR she'll lose her Base support and she loses anyway.
She is just trying to deflect the heat until its vote time. All the moderate dems are in the same position.
My real concern is Lieberman.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 26, 2009 2:32 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Problem is, in order for that to happen, the SDC's members would have to vote for rules that made that happen and they're all too self-interested to do it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
October 26, 2009 2:35 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Only in the very short run. In the slightly longer run they'll be paving their own way back into the minority if they allow the last remnants of party discipline to crumble into dust, making Democratic governance visibly and laughably ineffective. A strong majority leader might be able to get 51 of them to understand this calculus- if we had one, of course. Oh well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
October 26, 2009 3:24 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Most Senators can only see six years into the future, if that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
October 26, 2009 3:32 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Actually, it would only take 31. But you're missing something important--the same people who would have to change the rules to give up some of their precious autonomy to the Majority Leader are the ones who elect the Majority Leader we have. When they decide he's intruding on their turf, they can unelect him overnight (see entry for "Lott, Trent" in your Deskbook of Recent Political History to see how that works).
The majority leader can never be more powerful than the people who elect him let him. Unless a majority leader with Sith Mind Powers manages to get the spot, the day he comes to them and says "you need to give me more power" is the day they kick his butt out of leadership. It would happen faster than you can say "coup d'etat."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tosh
October 26, 2009 3:53 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Usually self interested, but they're also rather annoyed at the moment. Baucus laid the ground work for this. Blanche may be the one who gets the blow-back from it. Others may as well if they join the GOP in blocking big items via Cloture rather than letting them get up-and-down votes.
As pointed out below, it takes just 31 votes. We're hitting issues that people are extremely passionate about (Healthcare and Global Warming) where, after spending a year negotiating a watered down version of a bill it would drive people up the wall if they can't even get to and up-and-down. If they lose in a straight vote, they'll chalk it up to "just being normal Senate business". But via failing cloture, you're going to have a lot of people wonder why they're bothering keeping Lying Lieb and Blanche and Ben-Ben happy, especially the two that have key committee chairs.
John
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
October 26, 2009 1:50 PM
Lincoln's political career is over if she doesn't vote for cloture. Of course the health insurance industry will have a plum job waiting for her that will probably pay her seven figures.
Lincoln will at least have a chance for re-election if she votes for cloture because she'll have all of the machine support and will probably get a Big Dog campaign stop.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
October 26, 2009 2:01 PM
I think the better way to phrase the question is: "Senator Lincoln, will you support a Republican filibuster of health care reform."
Let's fight the main stream media's decision that, now that Democrats control the Senate, its normal for the Senate to require 60 votes on all legislation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
October 26, 2009 2:07 PM in reply to QuiteAlarmed
amen. testify. Woot woot!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CT Voter
October 26, 2009 2:49 PM in reply to QuiteAlarmed
"Senator Lincoln, will you support a Republican filibuster of health care reform."
Exactly. Every single last Democrat needs to answer this question up front.
The DSCC called me to ask for more money so that it could achieve an "overwhelming majority". When I pointed out that the only way President Snowe would "ruin" HCR was for Democrats to go along with the filibuster, the person on the other end said "Well, thank you for your opinion, and I understand your feelings on this".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
October 26, 2009 4:28 PM in reply to QuiteAlarmed
Q: "Senator Lincoln, will you support a Republican filibuster of health care reform."
A: "(Senator Lincoln) has not committed her vote to anyone."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
October 26, 2009 2:38 PM
I think the answer is simple. If she votes against cloture, she's out of the caucus, loses whatever chairmanships she has, etc. What's the point of having 60 members of the caucus if it's meaningless on the most important legislation of this Congress (and perhaps this generation)?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kenneth Thomas
October 26, 2009 2:45 PM in reply to Moose49
She was just made Chair of the Agriculture Committee after Harkin moved over to chair HELP after Teddy Kennedy's death. As her bio at the committee's website notes, she is the first Arkansan and first woman to chair Agriculture. She definitely has something to lose if she votes against cloture.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
October 26, 2009 3:12 PM in reply to Kenneth Thomas
Which is why it boggles my mind that Reid hasn't laid down the law yet. (Either that or he has and she's just doing this for show, in which case it doesn't matter.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
October 26, 2009 3:23 PM in reply to Moose49
Laid down the law how? What's he supposed to threaten to do? People keep going on and on about how Reid is supposed to DO SOMETHING, but there seems to be a shortage of ideas on what that something is. The reality is, he has very little leverage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
October 26, 2009 3:59 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
He -- presumably supported by a majority of the caucus -- could strip anyone voting against cloture of whatever committee and subcommittee chairs they have. Couldn't he?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
October 26, 2009 4:58 PM in reply to Moose49
"...presumably supported by a majority of the caucus..." Those are the key words. Here are three more: Not. Gonna. Happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tosh
October 26, 2009 3:00 PM in reply to Moose49
Committee Chairs who have been wishy-washy:
Agriculture: Blanche
Budget: Conrad
Finance: Baucus
HS & GA: Lying Lieb
Small Business: Landrieu
Conrad and Baucus are expected to vote for Cloture, though both hat the PO having been nicely bought off by Big Health.
Landrieu's committee is very minor, and certainly nothing compared to her re-election worries.
Blanche very much wants to stay chair of Agro-Com because it is a fantastic place to further some of her objectives in the balance of her term. One would have hoped that the Musical Chairs they played when Teddy died had Blanche get the chair while agreeing to Cloture Votes along party lines.
It would frankly be mind boggling if Harry and Leadership doesn't twist arms in this way: vote on party lines for cloture as a member of leadership, or lose your chair.
That *doesn't* pull in Ben Nelson, but I have a feeling that he's the "... maybe Two" Senator who doesn't want to go it alone, but would be willing to stick his neck out if Blanche went first.
John
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
WNCBlue
October 26, 2009 4:09 PM
My guess is that she's just setting things up for her "I oppose this version of health care reform, and hoped that things would be improved in conference, but given the crisis we face it's still important that we allow some sort of reform an up-or-down vote" speech that will precede her voting for cloture. That vote will be followed soon after by her "I cannot vote for this bill in its present form speech," which will then be followed by her joining Nelson in voting against the bill after it comes back from conference.
It used to drive me nuts when (Alito! Alito!) Democrats used to vote for cloture and then vote against a bill they could have blocked, but I'm okay with that happening here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
October 26, 2009 4:29 PM in reply to WNCBlue
that's where I'm putting my money, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
October 26, 2009 4:35 PM in reply to WNCBlue
and every senator who votes against HCR deserves a robust primary challenge. voting for cloture should not be sufficient for a free 'get out of primary challenge' card. if their opposition to health care reform is overwhelmingly and unambiguously supported by their consituents, more power to 'em. but the only way to be sure is with real primaries.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
October 26, 2009 5:34 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
Move to Arkansas and make it happen, then.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
October 26, 2009 5:03 PM
After thinking about this, here's my take. I'd be astounded if Reid and Durbin hadn't already discussed this extensively with Lincoln, Bayh, Nelson and all the other problematic votes. I don't think any of them would be able to take the heat if this went down with only 59 votes and they were the one that sank it. In each case, if they were the only holdout, they'd toe the line. It's a kind of prisoner's dilemma, but what it means is that if you get one, the odds of another go up....and the next and the next. They'll go like dominoes.
Harry Reid is pretty far out on the limb. Either he's got big time guts or he's already received private assurances that he's got the votes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lestatdelc
October 26, 2009 5:20 PM
Pure posturing so she can get some pound of flesh on something else. But in the end, she has to vote for cloture. If she doesn't, she becomes the person who killed healthcare and would be stripped of any leverage for the rest of her stay in the Senate at min.
Fire that bullet at your peril Ms. Lincoln.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
merlot
October 26, 2009 6:19 PM
Lincoln may not be committed. However, I am committed... committed financially to any and all of her opponents.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?