Nelson, Conrad Say Dems, White House Leaning Toward Including Public Option In Senate Health Care Bill

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

TheraP

October 22, 2009 2:52 PM in reply to UTMark

Ah.... delicious!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

cazart

October 22, 2009 3:33 PM in reply to UTMark

Obama's just waiting these fools out. They're on the 24-hour Cable schedule. He isn't. It's that simple.

When history calls, indeed.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Doc Magnus

October 22, 2009 3:53 PM in reply to cazart

He has a consistent (some could say almost "sinister") method of letting the other side play all of its cards first, then he strikes. The radical right threw it's best puch in August. Looks like October might be "That all you got?" time.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

UTMark

October 22, 2009 4:17 PM in reply to Doc Magnus

Deliciously sinister!

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 22, 2009 2:32 PM

"Bombshell" for those who've been predicting the imminent demise of the public option and/or decrying the co-opted sellouts. Not so much for those of us who've been taking issue with that outlook.

But carts, horses and the order makes a difference. Still plenty of time to find out the "we've been betrayed" faction is right. (And, of course, if they're wrong, they'll be taking credit for turning them around anyway, so it's a no-lose scenario for them).

But frankly, at this point I'm less worried about Nelson and Conrad on the cloture vote than I am about Landrieu and Lieberman. Landrieu most of all at this point, given that there would probably be enough votes in the caucus to pull Lieberman's cherished committee chair if he screws us.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Homefries

October 22, 2009 2:38 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

I would say this is more of a bombshell for the Republicans, especially considering the prospect of voting against a "opt out" and their constituents end up wanting to "opt-in".

Depending on how the "opt-out" is constructed, this could really be a diabolical keel hauling for the opponents. They end up losing in the worst way. First, they lose. Second, they lose looking really stupid.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fbacon2

October 22, 2009 2:49 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Don't forget Lincoln. The senators up for reelection in Dixie have their incentives all backward in this debate when their constituents trust Limbaugh over Obama.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

_jonny_5_

October 22, 2009 3:46 PM in reply to fbacon2

I hear you, And its my opinion that these southern "Dems" are worried about the wrong part of their electorates.

They clearly worry about their more conservative voters in their respective states, but what about their base? You can't win an election without them either, they have to know this. Are they betting that the base is so anti-repub that voters will hold their nose and pull the lever for so-called dems just for number's sake. Especially now that it's clear 60 members isn't really 60 votes w/ these assh*les.

The Opt-out was a lifeline to these Yahoos. It provides cover to say "I voted for the HCR w/ Opt-out because otherwise the bill would have passed anyway and we wouldn't have been able to Opt-out"

I see this "opt-out" as their only real way out of the "damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't" situation they are in. It seems clear this is the only narrow path to getting re-elected.

Did I miss my calling as a Paid Political Consultant? Or , is this obvious to everyone else too?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

theone718

October 22, 2009 3:22 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

I'm not. She even was quoted herself saying she didn't want to join a group of people in a filibuster who "want no progress at all"

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 22, 2009 4:06 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

I really really dislike Landrieu - Landrieu is pathetic. I remember in her bid for her seat in the previous election, she was actually losing big time and if it weren't for the black folks who turned out in numbers, she would have lost. I have a friend who lives in the NO area and he said a liberal democrat just cannot win down there and that's why she keeps getting elected. I would prefer to have an outright republican in the seat. At least then you know what you're getting. I hope she gets voted out next time.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

kgb999

October 22, 2009 4:19 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

One might argue that the people pushing back hard against every move that appeared to politically weaken the public option have a pretty big ownership stake in Obama's ability to act at this point (and that his ability to let them carry the water while he kept his powder dry has increased his clout at this juncture). I don't imagine those who have simply sat on their hands and told folks to STFU will ever acknowledge the point.

But you are right ... carts before horses. Proof will be in the pudding. One thing for sure, Reid is correct to keep his mouth shut at this point. I think there's an argument to me made that keeping the HELP plan out of the senate bill and merging the better house plan in it's entirety might be a better move if Pelosi and Reid can work the caucuses in harmony. It's almost to the point where we really are at the mercy of leadership's desire and ability - the public part of the battle has pretty much reached a climax. There is potentially one more round of helpful public outrage if they take the no HELP route to give them the political impetus to get the house version in the final bill.

IMO, lending a voice is really a matter of if you want to fight for what you believe is right - or fight to keep your political heroes from taking any guff.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fbacon2

October 22, 2009 2:38 PM

Step by step. The most worrisome prospect about Snowe's comments today is that it will give folks like Ben Nelson a heart attack, and there goes the cloture vote.

But if the goal posts have been moved enough that the caucus can at least unite behind a procedural vote for some form of public option on the Senate floor, then the prospects for the final bill just improved dramatically.

We'll see how this comes out, but the standing question in my mind still is, Would we be this far along had Obama made ostentatious public demands for the public option from the beginning? My guess is no, and his strategy is starting to pay off with the Senate.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Powkat

October 22, 2009 2:45 PM in reply to fbacon2

I've been thinking the same thing - remembering the campaign when it seemed like he wasn't pushing back enough, but it turned out to be the right response.

President Obama plays the long game - and he's good at it.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

chimpale

October 22, 2009 3:01 PM in reply to Powkat

I don't want to jump the gun, but does anyone else feel like this thing is starting to snowball?

The opposition is back on its heels and we're just starting to see the reserves come out on the side of reform.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 22, 2009 4:17 PM in reply to chimpale

I feel it is. I know there were times when I felt some doubt, but one thing I always believed was that Obama had a plan and knew the game he was playing.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 22, 2009 4:09 PM in reply to Powkat

He's a brilliant guy. This guy has more brains than the entire senate and congress. I have complete faith in the guy to do the right thing. I think he has done a fantastic job in 10 months considering the hand he was dealt.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AdAbsurdum

October 22, 2009 2:58 PM in reply to fbacon2

It appears, at least in the case of Nelson, that the opt-out, with all its states rights aura, has granted as much if not even more cover than the elusive promise of Snowe's crossover.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fbacon2

October 22, 2009 3:06 PM in reply to AdAbsurdum

I hope so. If that's the case, then Snowe becomes less relevant, and better still, we get the possibility that she's blustering to keep her influence. If she faces a fait accompli with health care + opt-out public option, my bet is that she still votes for the bill.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

chimpale

October 22, 2009 2:38 PM

All we ask of you, Sens. Nelson and Conrad, regardless of how you vote on the bill, is that you vote for cloture. Give the bill an up-or-down vote. I'm sure you'd want the same for a Republican-sponsored bill, so just be consistent.

And, if you guys could find it in your hearts to vote in favor of the bill, too, that would be just peachy.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

October 22, 2009 2:39 PM

The calculus here is simple: whip counts. If the Dems can keep all 60 in line on a cloture vote, they can tell Snowe to pound sand. For those that are rejoicing that they don't need to compromise with Snowe, remember that it just means they will need to compromise with the likes of Conrad, Lieberman and Bayh. I'm not sure which is worse.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 22, 2009 2:55 PM in reply to mans_best_friend

Screw cloture. Do it via reconciliation. Fire the parliamentarian if he makes trouble- the Repigs already set THAT precedent. Then all those assholes can pound sand no matter what.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mans_best_friend

October 22, 2009 3:00 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

Why not just declare martial law and impose it?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 22, 2009 3:07 PM in reply to mans_best_friend

Pure projection from someone who clearly doesn't believe in democracy himself. Here's a free clue, jackass: extra-Constitutional Senate "traditions" !=democracy.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

_jonny_5_

October 22, 2009 3:59 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

We bitched and moaned when repukes did it...(rightfully so)

Are you really suggesting that dems act in the way we despised so much? Should we go start a war too?

I thought we held ourselves to a higher standard. I know it's been frustrating, but it's all starting to happen.

Might I suggest a little Medical "Mary Jane" to calm your anxiety.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 22, 2009 4:11 PM in reply to _jonny_5_

I didn't. I believe in majority rule, period. Your lack of adherence to that is your problem, not mine.

The undemocratic nonsense in Senate rules needs to be destroyed, once and for all. The specter of timid liberals trying to hide behind procedure during the Bush administration instead of mounting vigorous public campaigns against bad and unpopular measures was, frankly, nauseating.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

_jonny_5_

October 22, 2009 4:25 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

Majority rule? Thats your defense?

I guess your right, monorities should have no rights.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 22, 2009 4:29 PM in reply to _jonny_5_

In a democratic legislature, goddamn right they shouldn't- not the right to permanently block any legislation they don't like, at least. Your understanding of democracy seems to be highly defective.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

_jonny_5_

October 22, 2009 4:53 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

I suppose you supported Bush packing the Judiciary w/ a bunch of right-wing Neanderthals in 2005?

I suppose you are white christian man that had nothing to worry about in that situation.

Sure, the filibuster has its problems but it halts as much damage to this country as it does progress.

That said, I think the rules should change back to forcing the folks supporting a filibuster to maintain a a presence on the senate floor, speachifying a la "Mr Smith Goes to Washington". This would force them to at least publicly stand against progress.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 22, 2009 5:06 PM in reply to _jonny_5_

It's well documented that the filibuster has done 100 times more to block progressive change than to block right-wing depredations. Until liberals learn to believe in democracy we will continue to fail, and deservedly so.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

_jonny_5_

October 22, 2009 5:26 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

My guess is that, while I'll agree that it has been used to block progress more often, the times it's used to block the damage the GOP likes to inflict on the country (Specifically the Judiciary) it's worth the extra work needed to get around the childish obstructionism of the GOP.

If Dems were to use the tactics that the GOP uses they would be no better than these Goopers. Besides the second Goopers have 51 seantors they would just repael everythings Dems did in the preceding years. Thats not the way for a government to be run.

I get it your frustrated, Me too. But what you are suggesting is unworkable. You think things are bad Now? Under your scenario the country would be torn apart every 2 - 4 years. I'll take the slow and steady approach over an even more partisan environment.

How about we leave it at...

We both support a strong PO, both support a strong Majority and agree to dis agree on how it gets done.

Good luck to us all.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

howie

October 22, 2009 3:20 PM in reply to mans_best_friend

My neighbors all think we already have...

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

kgb999

October 22, 2009 4:26 PM in reply to mans_best_friend

False equivalence. One suggestion (hardball reconciliation) is a valid parliamentary maneuver, the other is hyperbole.

I don't think we need to go the reconciliation route yet. But if we do, there is nothing dishonorable about it. And it would be completely valid unless the Senate decides to change their rules ... which would be a screwed up move if made in response to the rules finally being used to advance a progressive agenda. You don't win by refusing to use tools at your disposal because you didn't like it when someone else used them. That's not honor, that's weakness.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 22, 2009 5:09 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

I'm with you.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

cdub

October 22, 2009 2:39 PM

If this is really true I'll do a happy dance.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

RhodaA

October 22, 2009 2:54 PM

OpenLeft reported a little while ago that the House now has the votes to pass the Medicare+5 Public Option.
http://www.openleft.com/

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dorn76

October 22, 2009 2:58 PM

Let's keep leaning on them 'til they give in! A final push of calls, emails, faxes is in order.....

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 22, 2009 4:11 PM in reply to Dorn76

Letters are the best. Even Barney Frank said it. He said most of them ignore all the emails but they read the letters. He said it is pretty much still old school in the halls of congress.

So get on those computers and do mass mailings. It's the best way. Phone calls help but you can't get past the receptionist to talk to anyone of import so letters for sure.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Maritza

October 22, 2009 3:01 PM

The problem is do we have the votes in the Senate for a public option?

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 22, 2009 3:08 PM in reply to Maritza

52 votes in Caucus, according to, ah, hell I can't remember, but it was a senator and it was on the record. The question is whether Lincoln can find the nerve, Nelson can find the brains, Lieberman can find the heart, and Conrad can find his way off the gold brick road that the insurers have been paving for him, and vote for cloture.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 22, 2009 3:08 PM in reply to Maritza

We only need 50 + Biden.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

synchronicity

October 22, 2009 3:07 PM

Good all sentors who are caucusing with the democrats can vote for cloture so that the majority can have an up or down vote and the senate 'has' the votes to pass the bill with a majority. So, that's, that. We will get a public option.

This is really simple stuff and I can't believe how hard the senate is making it trying to cater to senators who will do nothing to help further reform.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 22, 2009 3:15 PM

By the way, what makes people imagine that Byrd is physically capable of being present for all the votes where he'd be needed to get anything through without reconciliation? 60 is a mirage even if Conrad, Nelson and Lieberschmuck mysteriously decide to behave.

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 22, 2009 9:10 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

Byrd will be there if he's conscious and they have to wheel him out on a gurney and hooked up to a heart lung machine.

But he's actually been doing better of late. Not gonna say he's well or getting well, because, damn, his dad's a Cambrian fossil in the Burgess Shale and you're never well at his age, but he's doing better.

Click here to register and start calling!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

msblucow

October 22, 2009 3:17 PM

Today the FDL Action PAC launches an online phone bank effort to call 40,000 of the most progressive Democrats in Nevada, asking them to contact Harry Reid and let him know they support a public option.

As Senate Majority leader, it is Harry Reid’s choice and his alone to include the public option in a final Senate bill. He’s the only one who gets to make that decision. And if he decides to kowtow to powerful DC lobbying interests and hike up health care costs for individuals by $2000 a year by jettisoning the public option, then he’s the one who will have to shoulder the blame.

The phone bank opens today at noon ET, but you can register now. Nevada Democrats will be asked to call Reid’s office to encourage him to include the HELP Committee’s public option in the final bill without limitation (no triggers, co-ops, “opt-outs” or other weakening measures). The phonebank will also identify Nevada constituents who would support a primary challenge to Reid if he fails to bring the public option to the floor. The data we capture will be a powerful tool in launching a campaign for a better Democratic Senator should Reid fail to listen to Democrats on this issue.

Harry Reid has said he will raise $25 million for his 2010 race. That’s over 3 1/2 times the amount he spent in 2004. With a 38% approval rating, I can understand why he thinks he needs to buy this race. But Reid’s unwillingness to enforce caucus discipline means that the 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority that so many Democrats worked so hard for is now meaningless. If he abandons the public option, Nevada residents — and all Democrats — can do better.

Click here to register and start calling!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

msblucow

October 22, 2009 3:18 PM

Today the FDL Action PAC launches an online phone bank effort to call 40,000 of the most progressive Democrats in Nevada, asking them to contact Harry Reid and let him know they support a public option.

As Senate Majority leader, it is Harry Reid’s choice and his alone to include the public option in a final Senate bill. He’s the only one who gets to make that decision. And if he decides to kowtow to powerful DC lobbying interests and hike up health care costs for individuals by $2000 a year by jettisoning the public option, then he’s the one who will have to shoulder the blame.

The phone bank opens today at noon ET, but you can register now. Nevada Democrats will be asked to call Reid’s office to encourage him to include the HELP Committee’s public option in the final bill without limitation (no triggers, co-ops, “opt-outs” or other weakening measures). The phonebank will also identify Nevada constituents who would support a primary challenge to Reid if he fails to bring the public option to the floor. The data we capture will be a powerful tool in launching a campaign for a better Democratic Senator should Reid fail to listen to Democrats on this issue.

Harry Reid has said he will raise $25 million for his 2010 race. That’s over 3 1/2 times the amount he spent in 2004. With a 38% approval rating, I can understand why he thinks he needs to buy this race. But Reid’s unwillingness to enforce caucus discipline means that the 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority that so many Democrats worked so hard for is now meaningless. If he abandons the public option, Nevada residents — and all Democrats — can do better.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

roxanne

October 22, 2009 3:18 PM

Yes! We've got to keep the pressure going but, I have to admit that this is great news if it's true. Reid needs to grow a spine. As for Beek nosed Ben Nelson and Kent Co Op's Conrad...STFU! All they have to do is not vote to filibuster with Republicans and queen Snowe and we've got our public option. They don't have to vote for the final bill. They just have to not vote against their own party. You're not going to be allowed to enjoy the benefits of being in the majority party without pulling your own weight. If the blue dogs are so fond of Republican points of view, then they should switch parties!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Mateo123

October 22, 2009 3:29 PM

Just because Nellie and Connie say they're going to vote for cloture (which they haven't) doesn't mean that the deal is done. We have Bayh. We have Lieberman. We have Blanche. We're not there yet, folks.

What's that line in Pulp Fiction? Yes, that one. That applies here. We're not done yet.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

_jonny_5_

October 22, 2009 4:14 PM in reply to Mateo123

I'm not really worried about Bayh... I think he'll fall into line but just doesn't want to take the heat associated with it until he has to.

Besides, his last name will pull a lot of weight for him come election time. I think we have bigger fish to fry.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

VictorLH

October 22, 2009 3:42 PM

If anyone here thinks Lieberman will not screw the people you are vastly mistaken.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 22, 2009 4:16 PM in reply to VictorLH

I doubt anyone here thinks he won't. We are all pretty aware of Lieberschmuck.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

tchamp77

October 22, 2009 4:51 PM in reply to VictorLH

Yes can just imagine his floor speech: "In my heart of hearts I cannot bring myself to vote for legislation that was not designed in a bi-partisan fashion...we should go back and work to ensure that both parties' ideas, views and interests are represented...."

http://www.actblue.com/page/harryreidad

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

timba

October 22, 2009 4:04 PM

Schumer and Rockefeller, not exactly what I'd call progressives, say that Reid can single-handedly insert a PO such that:

1) it takes 60 votes to REMOVE it
2) reconciliation is not necessary

I've yet to hear anyone contradict this and slinkerwink over at DKos confirms it.

If this is the case, we only need 50 plus Biden as long as Reid is one of the 50 and does his thing.

As such, I'm donating to and focusing on only one thing: this ad:

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 22, 2009 4:15 PM in reply to timba

I sent my donation too.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

theone718

October 22, 2009 4:21 PM in reply to timba

It's not about getting the votes to remove the PO(which is impossible) it is about getting the votes FOR HC reform WITH A PO IN IT. You still need 60 votes for that.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 22, 2009 4:24 PM in reply to theone718

Which, again, ain't gonna happen. Not just because of the Unreliables but because of Byrd being at death's door.

Mark my words, no remotely decent bill will be achieved except by reconciliation. Discussion of ways to get to cloture is a waste of time.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 22, 2009 5:12 PM

I say get it done whatever way we have to get it done.