TPMDC

Progressives Prepare to Pressure Reid to Include Public Option in Senate Health Care Bill

Spread the word and support this article by retweeting it!


Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Major progressive organizations see a golden opportunity to resurrect the public option, and are preparing a campaign, which will include television ads in Nevada, to pressure Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to get on board.

As I've noted a number of times, the public option will not be in the Senate Finance Committee's health care bill, but it can re-emerge at three key points in the legislative process. Among those, one of the most important is the next step, when Reid merges the Finance bill with a more liberal proposal from the Senate HELP Committee. If he adopts the latter panel's public option, it would dramatically alter the nature of the legislative battle, shifting the onus from liberals, who have been doggedly fighting to include the public option in the Senate bill, on to conservative Democrats, who would have to decide whether their opposition to the popular measure is so strong that they'd be willing to join the GOP in a health care filibuster and tank the entire reform effort.

Such a move would likely alienate Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), the only Republican working with Democrats on health care reform, and require Democratic leaders, including Reid and President Obama to make sure all 60 Democrats stand united when Republicans try to block the bill--a tall order, and one Reid doesn't seem prepared to meet.

"If Harry Reid does not have the leadership skills to get 60 votes for cloture and give a Democratic president an up-or-down vote on health care, progressives will help defeat him in 2010, even if that means Republicans take that seat," said the head of one progressive organization, who's still working out the detail of the campaign. "There is no use for Reid's vote if 60 Democratic votes means nothing on cloture, and no use for Reid's leadership if his leadership is so blatantly ineffective."

That might not be such a troubling threat if Reid, who's up for re-election in 2010, wasn't suffering at the polls.

Leadership, which will work with the chairmen of both the Finance and HELP committees, along with White House officials, when it cobbles together the final bill, says its main concern is ensuring that any bill that reaches the floor has 60 votes for cloture. And though that would likely be easier in absence of a public option, conservative Democrats and Republicans would still be able to have their say by introducing an amendment to strip it from the bill. That amendment would also likely require 60 votes, and would almost certainly fail. But it would give skeptics a chance to go on the record.

A call to Reid's office for comment on the coming ads was not immediately returned.

Join the Conversation!

112 comments

Recommend Recommend (1)

October 1, 2009 1:03 PM   

Up the ante on all D politicians, including ones as 'powerful' as Reid, who are against letting the Public Option get voted on by the full Senate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Tim

user-pic

October 14, 2009 9:29 AM    in reply to Libertine

How is it that so much of the leadership in the Senate is Democrats from conservative states? Reid, Baucus, what's up with that.

Why not have a Democrat from Massachusetts or Vermont or Oregon or California running things?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 1:35 PM   

A stiff breeze could "Pressure" Harry.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:19 PM    in reply to Dorn76

TRUST a constituent of Harry Reid (former boxer, who
uses the STEALTH attack of a knife under his coat rather
than, as the Neanderthal Repugs ... coming on with an
AK 47 in plain view)

HE WILL shepherd a PUBLIC OPTION.

DEMS took NV in 08 = went for Obama, re-elected Shelley
Berkley, newly elected Dina Titus.

HAVE a little faith ... better times are just
around the corner. Being depressed only leads to
infecting others around you with the same = take
it from a SHRINK. Dr. A. in LV

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:08 PM    in reply to Doctor Divine

Harry? Is that you?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:22 PM    in reply to Doctor Divine

Who's depressed? Try realistic. Reid is a wilting flower, to put it kindly.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:44 PM    in reply to Doctor Divine

He won't shepherd a strong PO. He'll happily shepherd some watered down "compromise" such as Co-Ops, Triggers or the nonsense that Canterwell is now floating (effectively contracting the PO out to... wait for it... yep... you guessed it... Big Health).

Harry will get right behind that. So will the White House. But they're going to give coverage to the anti-Healthcare Dems such as Blanche, Nelson, Senator Wellpoint, the Blue Dogs, Conrad & Co. by pulling off *everything* that they don't like.

Come on... this process was gamed from the start when Single Payer was never on the table even as a proposal to negotiate *down* from. They've effectively pulled all negotiating items from the Progressives at the start to allow the ConservaDems and Blue Dogs to pick away are already watered down proposals.

But hey, if you think this was fun, wait until we get to Climate Legislation. Big Health doesn't have anything on Big Energy when it comes to buying Congress Off. Beloved "progressives" on Healthcare like Rocky will suddenly revert back to The Junior Senator From West Virgina a/k/a/ A Protector Of Big Coal. Christ, even if Bird dropped dead two days after passing the watered down healthcare bill, we know that a Big Coal supporter will get appointed to fill the seat and one would get elected in 2010 to fill the balance of the term.

I don't think people grasp that Health Care was the "easy" one. Global Warming, FISA, Patriot Act, Don't Ask / Don't Tell, Financial Regulation, cutting the insane Defense Budget, Raising Taxes / Revenue, killing off the Bush Tax Cuts, another Stimulous... those are all the hard ones.

Dems can't even avoid screwing up on the easy one.

Have faith in Harry?

I'm as likely to believe Peter Pan about Never Never Land.

John

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 5:18 PM    in reply to tosh

Easy one" my ass.

Yeah right, that's why we've had healthcare reform all these years.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 6:02 PM    in reply to Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation

Um, I think the point is that therest of the list is even harder. No one thinks HCR is easy other than by comparison.

I would disagree with Tosh in one respect: If HCR passes, all the rest of those get easier. It will encourage progressives and increase the chances of a more progressive congress in the next cycle.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

mcc

user-pic

October 1, 2009 1:46 PM   

"If Harry Reid does not have the leadership skills to get 60 votes for cloture and give a Democratic president an up-or-down vote on health care, progressives will help defeat him in 2010, even if that means Republicans take that seat," said the head of one progressive organization, who's still working out the detail of the campaign. "There is no use for Reid's vote if 60 Democratic votes means nothing on cloture, and no use for Reid's leadership if his leadership is so blatantly ineffective."

Wow, fighting words. It would be neat to have some statements like that on the record.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 1:47 PM    in reply to mcc

I hope they are serious.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:24 PM    in reply to mcc

Exactly. Unsourced fighting words are not good for much. Hopefully this is a prelude to a signed and sealed commitment. Even better would be a solid commitment to support him if he wins this battle and cut him off at the knees if he doesn't. A general wouldn't survive a total fail. Why should Harry?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 1:48 PM   

Seriously, what is the use of the majority if you don't use it. The senate would be better off without Reid. As far as the public option goes, Congress loves them some government health care.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 1:50 PM   

Can we please get some info on who is actually planning these ads so that I can send them some money? I'd rather have another Republican senator than Reid.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:29 PM    in reply to Jotham Stavely

I don't think I could go as far as hoping for a thug to win. He does vote with the dems on all other issues, but I agree he is a weak leader.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 1:50 PM   

Zero leadership from Reid. Ditto Obama. Next time around vote in real progressives.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:41 PM    in reply to drwu

You're way premature in turning on Obama, and maybe even on Reid. If Reid fails to get a decent bill passed it will be time to attack. Until then, this is the time to warn of the consequences of failure for his own future. Assuming failure, OTOH, only works against our interests.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:28 PM    in reply to DaveW

Harry Reid has a long history of failure as Majority Leader. He failed to stop telecomm imunity, runaway Iraq funding, or the holdup of some of President Obama's appointments. He's allowed the Republicans to bring the Senate to a standstill, even now. He has the power to schedule whatever legislation he likes, and the legislation we see is almost universally counter to the interests of most Americans. He's had his three year moment in the sun.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:10 PM    in reply to drwu

this is the right time to call out Reid and Obama, not after it's all done.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 1:51 PM   

I'd say this idea is about 3 years too late and counting. Reid should have been tossed after his collaboration with Bush in the last 2yrs of Bush.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:02 PM   

YES!!!!!!!!!

That what I'm fucking talking about. It's about time liberals bring the heat. Let's get some info about who their primary challengers are and who will be running the anti-Reid ads so we can contribute.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:07 PM   

I am all for pressure to get the public option but you must all understand that dumping Democratic Senators just gets you farther away from the goal. So now you have ANOTHER REPUBLICAN in the Senate .... how the hell does that help?

This is the point where frustration becomes irrational. Please understand the complexity of this situation and do not resort to funding and promoting ANOTHER REPUBLICAN SENATOR. That is exactly what the pubic option does NOT need.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:33 PM    in reply to hollywood

"how the hell does that help?"

How does it help us by rewarding his cravenness with reelection?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:37 PM    in reply to hollywood

Nobody's talking about dumping Reid before we see what happens with healthcare reform. I don't see anything wrong, and a lot right, about announcing a contingency plan in the event that he fails. If he does deliver, we need to be comparably congratulatory and supportive.

As to how it helps to risk halping a Republican to replace him: Do you have a better suggestion for letting the Dead Skunk Democrats know that their days of taking progressives for granted are over? That toadying up to the wingnuts will put their continued employment at serious risk? Nothing else has worked so far.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AJM

user-pic

October 1, 2009 2:41 PM    in reply to hollywood

What is not needed is the passage of a 'reform' bill with no method of limiting insurance company profiteering on the basis of mandated purchase. The fear is that if a measure like the one proposed by Baucus (who is WELL supported by the insurance industry) passes, it will directly increase the cost to the majority of consumers and that not only will this make the passage of a public option impossible in the future it will make the election of any and all Democrats unlikely in the near term. Sacrificing a few incompetent Democrats now in order to prevent such an outcome would appear to be well justified.

Further, when a party goes against the will of their constituents who do support the public option, the natural course of affairs is for those very same constituents to refuse to vote for them. Trust us, in the absence, of results, doesn't cut it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:12 PM    in reply to AJM

What is not needed is the passage of a 'reform' bill with no method of limiting insurance company profiteering on the basis of mandated purchase.

hear, Hear!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 14, 2009 10:41 AM    in reply to AJM

I like the cogency of the argument that NOT making a strong progressive stand will leave Democrats holding the bag for a bad economy and ineffective, expensive health care. This will endanger there ability to win any seats. Sacrificing the Harry Reid's of the world will likely end up saving a lot of the rest of the Democrats and will help cement a populist distinction between corporate crony Republicans (against the people come hell or high water) and Democrats (who may be corporate and toadies, but are at least willing to to acknowledge their own constituents when push comes to shove).

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:08 PM   

Reid didn't steal his position as Majority Leader. He was chosen by the Democrats in the senate who elected him.

His weak and failed leadership is a reflection of those senate Democrats.

This is an unpleasant truth that many people seemingly don't wish to acknowledge.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:27 PM    in reply to tommyo

Bingo! And since Obama doesn't show signs of going all LBJ on anyone, the Democritters do what they want.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:13 PM   

About damn time somebody held his feet to the fire!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:13 PM   

It's gettin ugly, baby!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:21 PM    in reply to Steve Gilpatrick

Nah. Actually, it's gettin beautiful!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:14 PM   

It's About Effing Time! Personally, I think Harry should go home, get drunk and wander around Searchlight until he falls down one of those abandoned silver mines that dot the landscape there.
Might save the taxpayers the price of a State Funeral in the long run and in the short, might just provide health care to a whole bunch of deserving people..

Just this old Chief's 2 cents

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:16 PM   

It's About Effing Time! Personally, I think Harry should go home, get drunk and wander around Searchlight until he falls down one of those abandoned silver mines that dot the landscape there.
Might save the taxpayers the price of a State Funeral in the long run and in the short, might just provide health care to a whole bunch of deserving people..

Just this old Chief's 2 cents

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:50 PM    in reply to raiatean

I agree, it's about time, but Reid can't get drunk and wander around cause he's a Mormon.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:17 PM   

Reid will get the strategic Republican vote in Nevada to keep him as Senate Dem leader - he's the gift that keeps on giving there.

Reid will have silly money, and the Obama Administration Machine behind him - it's fun to dream about, but he's not going anywhere.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:47 PM    in reply to Walter Mitty

He may get reelected. It's very doubtful he'll remain majority leader. Assuming the Dems still have a majority if they screw up this one.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:20 PM    in reply to DaveW

You really think the Dem caucus will boot his ass? That's not usually how things work. While I wouldn't put it past the GOPers to let Jellyfish Harry run unopposed so he can continue pissing us all off, last I checked, he had a big red target on his back. It wouldn't take much effort on the part of Democrats to punt this seat. As somebody from DKos said yesterday, addition by subtraction.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:41 PM    in reply to Steaming Pile

If he fails on healthcare I don't think he has a chance in hell of keeping his Senate position.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:55 PM    in reply to Steaming Pile

There is rumblings that Schumer is laying the groundwork to make a move on Reid's leadership.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:18 PM   

What would really be nice is if progressive Dems in the Senate formed Progressive Block like their counterparts in the House.

What if even ten Senators stood up and said that if a bill doesn't have a public option, they would not vote for it? How do you get to 60 then, Mr. "Leader?"

Alternatively maybe some Senate Dems with spine could let Reid know that if he fails on this he will not be Leader in the next Congress, whether he wins his re-election or not.

Oh, right, that would require ten Democratic Senators with a spine.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:39 PM    in reply to mjshep

Even on the Finance Committee 8 of the 13 Democrats voted for Rockefeller's public option amendment and 10 for Schumer's. I don't see why a Senate Progreesive Block isn't a very real possibility. I hope it's being actively discussed right now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:26 PM   

Replace him with a wing-nut Republican, that will show him. The rest of the country will be fucked, but Harry Reid will surely get his.

Why can't these organizations work to replace stale Dems without sacrificing a majority? Yes, I know all the arguments, but to give up the majority to the people who have no interest, no intention of voting with Obama EVER is just "fucking stupid."

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:42 PM    in reply to VivaAmerica!

Ding-Ding!

Ding-Ding!

Nailed it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:26 PM   

Good God, this is insanity and beyond stupid. This is basically a liberal Club For Growth approach and a road to both legislative and electoral defeat.

Those liberals who think this is all such a great approach need to get real about politics. "Leadership" is not ramming a particular legislative component down the diverse caucus' throat. It's getting the caucus to vote together on whatever all 60 are willing to vote "yes" on.

It's not clear-cut at all that the public option is "popular." The polling is mixed, and too many proponents just cherry-pick favorable polls that show a very incomplete picture. Most voters don't care about politics or follow it closely enough to have firm opinions on particular components of legislation, including the public option. Public opinion can drift either way. And we have some Senators in plainly CONSERVATIVE STATES who rightly fear the messaging much more easily can be worked against the public option than for it.

Harry Reid losing next year hurts us badly. Anyone who fails to recognize that is truly stupid.

We don't have a liberal or progressive majority. We have a Democratic majority. And our majority is a liberal/moderate coalition. And the "moderate" part of that coalition is FORCED by the voters in states like Nebraska and Arkansas and Louisiana, rather than a matter of choice like the sleezeball Lieberman. And that means as liberals we can't get everything we want.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:32 PM    in reply to DCCyclone

Wrong. What we wanted all along, as progressives, is single-payer. We've already given on that.

Now all we want is a limited public option in the exchange. Its not even going to be available to everyone. Just the people that don't have insurance right now.

And you're saying give on that too???

Are you prepared to take a stand on values and principles, on anything?

If so, I'd like to know what it would be.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:43 PM    in reply to willia451

Show me where we have 60 "progressive" Senators.

We don't. Period.

We have 60 Democrats.

I'm a pragmatic liberal who will take as much as possible at a given moment.

Understand the public option you want might not be possible. Period. And no, there was no single payer as a legislative starting point that was negotiated away. Single payer was never on the table. It's just what liberals want, and not even necessarily all liberals. I'm a liberal, and even I'm not sold on single payer.

So your "line in the sand" in that instance means no health care reform for at least another generation.

Or, we take what we can get now, and over the years add to it, eventually getting some sort of public option. Or maybe even single payer if it seems like a good idea after all to a near-majority.

But your all-or-nothing attitude and approach, willia451, is exactly the attitude that got the Republicans reduced to 40 seats today. And I'm betting they'll be down to 30something come January 2011.

Our party is a coalition of people who agree on more than we disagree. But some of our Senators needed substantial numbers of conservative support in their states to win.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:00 PM    in reply to DCCyclone

This has nothing to do with constituents. It's all about not crossing the insurance companies. There's no popular pressure against real healthcare reform except from lobbyists. If you were really all liberal and pragmatic, you'd be worried about the massive losses that will follow a Democratic failure to deliver on their promises. Losing Reid will be less than a drop in the bucket compared to that hurricane.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:18 PM    in reply to DCCyclone

Sorry to disagree, but I think your view of gradualism is flawed. The only way there will be any change in the health insurance landscape is via brute force. Many of the people who got excited about Obama voted for him because he was advocating dramatically changing the political landscape.
In my view, the leadership in the senate is cowardly in the extreme. Reid has been an unmitigated disaster when it comes to exercising his responsibility as democratic leader. His performance as majority leader of the senate has been OK; however, the republicans in the senate are playing by different rules, and Reid seems not to want to recognize the game they're playing. A little more of Reid's leadership, and we'll not only lose the public option, we'll lose all reform except possibly tort reform and interstate deregulation, both republican options and both a total loss for the majority of americans who are in the process of having their coverage denied.
So be an incrementalist. It's a stance which will be cheered in all the health insurance boardrooms.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:29 PM    in reply to rbe1

Reid is weak. Somebody needs to grab him where the hair is short and make him get things done.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

mcc

user-pic

October 1, 2009 3:49 PM    in reply to DCCyclone

The problem is the personal mandate. With the mandate in, and without a public option to limit its damage, this bill is worse than nothing. It isn't "as much as we can get", it's a step backward, a strengthening of the power of the insurance companies. And it quite possibly won't pass, because a significant number of House representatives-- including the one for my district-- will vote against it.

But some of our Senators needed substantial numbers of conservative support in their states to win.

Except it can't be said enough, resisting the public option isn't about "conservative support" since substantial numbers of conservatives are sold or salable on the public option. Resisting the public option is about either personal ideology, or serving corporate donors. "I can't vote against the views of my constituents" can sometimes justify a vote. "I can't vote against the views of my donors" doesn't.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 4:02 PM    in reply to DCCyclone

Sorry. But its not all or nothing. We've already compromised.

We've gone from single payer, to a public option offered to everyone, to a robust public option only in the exchange, to a negotiated rates public option in the exchange.

I'm all about compromise. I'm for it.

But I'm NOT for negotiating away everything, just to get a bad bill. And we need to let Reid know that is unacceptable.

Didn't mean to offend if I did.

But you need to stand, my man.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:36 PM    in reply to DCCyclone

Dude, we had 59 before Franken. Losing Reid means going back to 59, assuming there's no pickup anywhere else. It's not the end of the world.

Besides, we can't avoid holding any Dems' feet to the fire because losing even a single Dem in Congress would be the worst thing ever.

These nitwits in DC need to realize that their job isn't a sinecure. It's a friggin' responsibility, and NOT to their lobbyist buddies, but to US.

Besides, how much less would a Republican senator from NV contribute than Reid has? All Reid has ever done is give cover to Republican obstructionism and deception.

This isn't just about healthcare. It's about every capitulation and mealy-mouth "Oh, we COULD do something, but we don't have the votes" or "we have to keep our powder dry for a future battle that will never come" line we got out of his mouth.

Republicans are assholes. They will never do anything to help Democrats pass what matters. Reid does nothing except provide the Dems with excuses for doing nothing. The time has come to say "Hey, you gave it your best shot, it's not working out...

Harry, it's not me. It's you."

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:55 PM    in reply to Clavis

Dude, your complaints are a mixed bag of hyperbole and ignorance. Your and so many others' comments here read like Red State, except in reverse.

Losing Reid means the environment is so bad that we lose several seats, not just him.

And stop this "primary Reid!" talk, that's as delusional as "Obama was born in Kenya."

I hope we get a public option in the final legislation, but no it's not a failure if we don't. And Reid has to play it very carefully just to have a plausible chance to accomplish it. Drawing a line in the sand doesn't get it done. People like Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu require conservative votes to get reelected...and Lincoln for her part is up next year and, for the moment, in deep trouble. She's not in trouble for opposing the public option, she's in trouble because conservatives are unhappy with Democrats--inevitable since we're a liberal/moderate coalition, and conservatives are out of power. So Reid has to overcome all that to get Lincoln and a few others to vote for as liberal a bill as they feel is politically defensible in their conservative states. That's tough.

Reid has been badly off-message at times as the Senate Dem caucus leader, but ultimately we haven't had a legislative failure all year, and I'm not prepared to write him off in what's really a tie game in the 3rd quarter.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:28 PM    in reply to DCCyclone

Football analogies aside, the dems who need conservative votes to win are only worth something if they are willing to take the chance on losing their jobs next election in order to do their duty during their current terms (they might even be pleasantly surprised if they do take that chance, who knows?). This means they vote for the whole package now.
My problem with your point of view is the same problem I've been having with democrats (especially senators) who for some reason believe they are so fucking important that nothing they can do is worth losing their jobs.
I happen to disagree with this lame point of view, because it leads downward into moral oblivion.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:44 PM    in reply to DCCyclone

Fine. Fly to Las Vegas, friend, and campaign for Harry Reid.

Speaking for myself, I have utterly lost confidence in Reid's ability to stand for anything, because his track record is such that he inherently prefers Senate comity in lieu of actual commitment and accomplishment. At this crtical juncture in our nation's history, I prefer my Democrats to have backbones, such as freshman Florida Congressman Alan Grayson (D-Cojones County).

Look, I have no doubt that Harry Reid is a very nice man, but he's also proven himself to be a political weathervane and a pussy. I can get a weathervane at Home Depot for $49.95, and history is repleat with examples of political leaders who turn out to be pussies at the moment of truth, which is inevitably a formula for disaster.

It's time to face facts. Harry Reid has had a greater than ample opportunity to get his caucus's shit together, and he just can't get it done. Maybe he'll surprise me, and I sincerely hope he proves me wrong in this instance, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that day.

You best realize that people respect politicians who effectively argue their case from a position of confidence in their own respective positions. To paraphrase the late House Speaker Tip O'Neill and the late baseball manager Leo Durocher, politics ain't beanbag and nice guys finish last. Harry Reid is a loser, and by logical extension he renders the rest of us the same.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 4:45 PM    in reply to DCCyclone

Your remarks are insulting and baseless. I demand an apology.

And you keep going and on about healthcare, as if Harry Reid only just got the job of Majority Leader three months ago. He has been spineless and worthless for years. On how many issues does he get to capitulate to the Republicans before people like you stop giving him a pass?

Of course, it could be that you LIKE it that Reid always gives in to the Republicans...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:38 PM    in reply to DCCyclone

Do the math. We have 60 seats. We will probably get a couple more next year. We can afford to give one away if it means getting a more effective majority leader.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:47 PM    in reply to Steaming Pile

Steaming Pile, get a clue. If Reid goes down, it means the environment is so bad for us that we're losing seats, not gaining them. We won't be at 59, we'll be in the mid-50s. And the Democratic caucus will be more scared than ever to do anything liberals want.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:11 PM    in reply to DCCyclone

But at least we'll have ideological purity. For some people, that's more important than actual progress.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:23 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

I'll settle for a real leader. Schumer could do the job with 51. Oh, and Reid is already in deep trouble. If the polls hold water (debatable), it wouldn't take much non-effort on our part to send him home for good.

Addition by subtraction.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:39 PM    in reply to Steaming Pile

Schumer could do the job with 51?? In what universe?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AJM

user-pic

October 2, 2009 10:19 AM    in reply to mans_best_friend

The same one where the Republicans are blocking progress by filibustering. Passing things we should be filibustering is NOT progress.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:29 PM    in reply to DCCyclone

And that environment will happen if the Dems force people to buy health insurance they can't afford from parasitic corporations they hate. Democrats will be the default minority for at least a generation. Nobody gives points for "nice try". For a self-proclaimed pragmatist, you sure seem to have a problem knowing which end is up.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:41 PM    in reply to DCCyclone

So to sum up what you said in several paragraphs:

There will never be progressive legislation ever passed! Get over yourselves, Washington only works for the Corporate Elite.

Ok thnx for reminding me why we continue to condone murder for profit health care system in the wealthiest country in the history of the planet. Must feel good when you lay in bed at night knowing your a corporate apologist.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:57 PM    in reply to DCCyclone

"Demanding that Democrats act and vote like Democrats and to ask them to vote for things a vast majority of Americans favor?

Well... uh, I don't know what to, OMG!

The sky if falling! The sky if falling!

Don't you unrealistic liberals realize that any bill, no matter how rotten, is better than no bill! It's simply terrible when progressives take a stand and don't allow the corporate centrists to fuck the people over and over. How unrealistic can they be insisting upon a bill that's actually good for the average American? Don't you stupid liberals know how our system works?"

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:20 PM    in reply to DCCyclone

It's not clear-cut at all that the public option is "popular"

in what universe ? 60% of Arkansans favor the PO. you and the other Conrad staffers office can sell that to the folks who get their analysis from Brian Williams, but it sure as hell wont fly here.

and that whole 'liberal club for growth' thing worked quite well for the Culinary Workers in NV who wouldn't do sh* for Reid until he brought EFCA to the floor - how in the hell is this any different ?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

mcc

user-pic

October 1, 2009 3:34 PM    in reply to DCCyclone

The idea is the health care reform bill is a test case for whether it is, in fact, about "getting to 60". We are at 60. If starting with 60 seats we aren't able to get a bill through that is minimally acceptable to the left when the left position has favorable support with the general population, then apparently it wasn't about getting to 60 at all in the first place. It was apparently about something else, something we didn't do.

The Club for Growth is the reason why the Republicans will not be able to get back in to power this next half decade. But the Club for Growth is also wildly successful at its goals, and the reason why the conservative movement itself continues to find consistent success even when they fail miserably at winning elections. The Club for Growth winnowed the Republican caucus down to 40 votes in the Senate, but they also built a 40-vote minority that votes as a bloc on everything. Due to efforts of the Club for Growth and similar entities, every one of those 40 members is either a loony extremist, or owes the base something. Were those few remaining northeastern Republicans not more afraid of the CfG than they are of losing a general election, they would vote their districts on cloture and the Democrats would easily be able to pass legislation with say 55 or 56 votes. But as it is the right can potentially do more with 40 votes, for their goals, than the left can with 60. The club for growth itself has no idea how to pick battles and surely demonstrates a pathological case the left needs to avoid, but they also demonstrate that being selective about who is allowed into your tent can generate real results.

Maybe the left needs to stop concentrating only on getting as many warm bodies as possible into the "D" column, and think hard about when and whether it's actually possible some Democrats are doing more damage than that same seat would in the hands of a Republican. There's no need for every single Democrat to be a "progressive", or for every single Democrat to stand with us on everything. But surely there has to be some limit to what you can do and remain a Democrat?

The senate races of 2010 are structurally favorable to the Democrats, and surely we will pick up at least one Senate seat net. That means at this time we can afford to lose one, maybe two elections we might have won otherwise while protecting that magic 60 number. On the other hand if Reid is powerless to prevent his however-many members from joining in with Republican obstructionism... well, then so long as Reid is the person trusted with that job it will not matter if the number of members is equal to 58, 60, or 62. These members can certainly convince me otherwise, and show me that there is a real advantage to having those 60 warm bodies, but at this exact moment it is not clear to me that the Democrats would be worse off with two fewer members in the caucus than they are right now with two of those members being Blanche Lincoln and Harry Reid.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:50 PM    in reply to mcc

Well put. I'd go so far as to say the minimal line comes on cloture votes. If a Dem senator can't vote to allow voting on a major Democratic bill backed by a Democratic president, they have no cred as Democrats. Simple as that. Nobody pays a significant price for voting for cloture, so the only constituency they're working for is the corporate lobbyists -- there's just no other rational explanation. Voting for cloture is hardly some draconian Club for Growth fanaticism. Let them vote as they see fit on the bill itself. But to join the republicans in blocking a vote at all is grounds for termination.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:26 PM   

I have no problem with this. Its now or never. Progressives are the base of the Democratic Party. Support, at least to a significant degree, the values of that base, or face the consequences.

We have already compromised on single-payer. All we're asking for now is a stinking limited public option in the exchange for people that don't have insurance today.

And they can't even deliver on THAT????????

They'd better deliver on it. Or all HELL is going to break loose.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:39 PM    in reply to willia451

Actually we're asking for less than that. We're asking Democratic senators, many of whom are in office on Obama's coattails, to vote to allow a fucking VOTE on healthcare reform. They can vote however they want on the final bill. Getting that done is precisely the job of the majority leader. If he can't do it, he's useless. As to all the trollish "moderates" here, it's total bullshit to pretend that a vote to allow debate would hurt the election chances of Reid, Lincoln, or anybody else. Or maybe I should have said trollshit.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 6:12 PM    in reply to DaveW

Well reasoned. Which will make it all the more depressing if Reid doesn't include the po...it will be certain he's just voting with his corporate sponsors in mind. Electorally, it's hard to argue any Conservative Senator risks anything in allowing a vote on healthcare with a po. Too disheartening for words.

In the meantime, I've written to (MA) reps and Obama stating any incumbent loses my vote if healthcare without a po is passed, it doesn't matter how the incumbent votes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:28 PM   

Now that's what I'm talkin about!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:28 PM   

About time. I'm doing the same with Colin Peterson, I'd rather a Republican just take the seat openly. Democrats will never get it back but enough is enough.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:36 PM   

Another shout out in support of bitch slapping Harry Reid!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:36 PM   

Why is this being said publicly? Even some "progressive" groups are prepared to take Reid down if he doesn't do what he's supposed to do, what is the benefit of having this discussion in public?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:42 PM   

Someone needs to explain to me how Dick Durbin, the Majority Whip (whose job it is to get the votes in line) gets off without a mention. I don't have a problem with going after Reid if only to let me know we're paying attention but there's enough blame to go to Durbin as well.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:58 PM    in reply to Will work for shoes

It's Reid, not Durbin, who controls what bills are called and under what rules. If Durbin had Reid's job I believe we'd be much better off.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:43 PM   

Will someone please hammer home to the conservative Dems that the public option is a money saver and flood their districts with that message. Yes, all politics is local and it may be necessary to toss them a sop to assuage concern for their home state docs and hospitals, but Dems need to succeed on health care and the public option is the best way to go.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:44 PM   

Anyone who thinks its better to have a Republican than Reid is batshit cray-zee.

Just how much legislation have any of you passed?

I think this goes waay too far. I'm all for pressure but this kind is stupid.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:00 PM    in reply to LBJs Brain

You mean you're all for pressure unless it is enough pressure to actually have an effect.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:06 PM    in reply to oleeb

I think making the statement that its better to have a Republican in his place is ridiculous and will be seen as such by Reid. And should be!

Thats not pressure-thats histrionics.

I'd like to know who this quote can attributed to so I can call him/her on this b.s. Vote him out of Leader but primary him so that go knows who get his seat?

Sometimes the left-wing cracks me up. And I'm a leftie!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:07 PM    in reply to LBJs Brain

that would be "so *God* knows who gets his seat?"...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 6:09 PM    in reply to LBJs Brain

If the outcomes don't differ all that much what real difference does it make to the average American? I can tell you---it makes zero difference.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 7:04 PM    in reply to oleeb

I don't think he should be Leader but a Gooper in his place? Get real.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:48 PM   

I love the smell of a SPINE in the morning!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:49 PM   

It is Obama not Reid who will be calling the shots on how the public option goes down.

It would be an absolute DISASTER for the Senate majority leader to loose his Democratic seat to a conservative Republican. This 'eat your own' mindset is so completely self defeating it makes me really wonder if any of you have any common sense or are just venting.

What the Senate needs is to PICK UP A FEW MORE SEATS and operate with a margin of 62 or 63 so that it doesn't always depend on an all or nothing calculation.

Go out and fight to PICK UP 2 or 3 new Senators instead of killing off your majority with misplaced anger.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:39 PM    in reply to hollywood

Amen!

We have a seat here in Ohio ripe for the plucking.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 4:04 PM    in reply to hollywood

Even if you were right, if the Dems fuck this one up nobody's ever going to believe that again. Been there, done that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:51 PM   

Reid is trying to gather the votes needed to pass a solid bill with a public option. Lefties throwing a hissy fit won't change that.

Where do these nuts get the notion that he is working against health care reform? Take a few minutes and learn a bit about how government works.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:16 PM    in reply to oskieoskie

That's not entirely the point. The point is to remind him who he works for, Democrats or the Insurance Industry?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:32 PM    in reply to oskieoskie

Reid has consistently shown a lack of leadership skills. Do you remember how he repeatedly caved to the Bush agenda?

I am tired of his dum-de-do-dum-dee approach. He has no fire.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:59 PM    in reply to oskieoskie

Why don't you take some time yourself, and instead learn how real political leadership is supposed to work.

For his part, much like his former colleague Tom Daschle, Harry Reid has governed the Senate with the philosophy of a political drifter who's far more interested in maintaining his own position of power, rather than actually exercising the inherent power of his position. And as the old adage goes, if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:52 PM   

Hoorah!,hoorah!,hoorah Progressives.It warms my soul what the progressives are doing with regards to Reid.For yrs Reid has been obstructing the progressive agenda.Good to see people are finally waking up to the scam he has been running.


Just take a look at the chairs of some of the committees & sub -comimttees,Reid has rewarded 'em with chairmanships eventhough ,they don't even support the Dem party platform planks Nov 08(universal healthcare).Think how ludricous that is.Blanche Lincoln was just given chairmanship of Agri -sub committee.It's insanely poor leadership.I say work to vote him out as opposed to if he does do this or that,just work to get him out for chrissakes!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 2:55 PM   

I don't understand why it is hard to get 60 Democrats to support cloture.

Let up to nine of them vote against the final bill, if they are so worried about their next Republican opponent's campaign ads. But if they want to stay in the Democratic caucus, they should at least vote to bring the issue to a vote!

For cryin' out loud, they all voted for the same Senate leadership (i.e. Mr. Reid). Why can't they vote for cloture on this and every other bill supported by their leadership?? I mean, what's the point of a caucus if not that?

-- ARG

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:02 PM    in reply to ARG in Chicago

It's this hard because so many Democrats are beholden to the same insurance and drug company interests as the Republicans. The unfortunate truth is that the Democrats are only a hair better than the Republicans when it comes to being corrupt and beholden to special interests. I've been a loyal Democrat all my life but you have to face the reality that the Democrats these days are only marginally better than the Republicans. Most of what they do sucks big time.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:39 PM    in reply to ARG in Chicago

ARG
I'm with you, my father told me once never to say never.

I said a few years back I wound never vote for a repug for the rest of my life, to save the dems from themselves now that has now even changed for me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 4:07 PM    in reply to Tomg802

Speaking for myself, I'll never vote for another Republican. That, however, does not preclude me or other committed Democrats from leaving our ballots blank, if need be.

Here in the islands, we had a Democratic candidate for lieutenant governor three years ago who was so obnoxious, not to mention emotionally unstable, that the number of blank ballots cast in the Democratic L.G. primary actually exceeded the number of votes she received. She still won the nomination, but we clearly made our statement.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:01 PM   

Reid needs to schedule the cloture vote the day before they all go home for their holiday recess and force a REAL filibuster. Keep them ALL there for as long as it takes for them to vote for cloture. That will make the ConservaDems real popular with their constituents!! Time for Harry to grow some.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:07 PM   

Ol'Kolob REid is an IDIOT and a SPINELESS Troll

nuff'said...it is about time progressives help get rid of the loser

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:22 PM   

You don't get it if you don't know why we would literally allow a Republican to take his seat. What is the point? They said they can't do anything without a majority. We give it to them. They say they can't do anything without 60 votes. We give it to them. Now you are going to tell me Reid can't get 60 PROCEDURAL votes for the DEMOCRATIC President's HC bill with a public option when with 60 DEMS in the Senate? FUCK THAT. You get the job done Reid or we come for your damn seat. PERIOD.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:22 PM   

Which progressive organizations is this article referring to? This is a good plan, because it gets rid of a problem and makes a very important point, which is that progressives have the power and the will to make people lose their jobs for non-performance. People like Sen. Reid won't respect any group that can't hurt them. It sounds like a plan that's beyond most of the progressive organizations I've been reading about lately.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:28 PM   

Reid has been a weak and ineffective leader for as long as I can remember.

Call and let him know your fed up with him:

Phone: 202-224-3542 / Fax: 202-224-7327
Toll Free for Nevadans: 1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343) -Restricted to calls originating from area codes 775 and 702

I did and his staffer sounded frazzled.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 3:35 PM   

A majority in Maine want the public option.
And Dems are worried about alienating Snowe?

From who?
Her own electorate?

These modern Dems don't know how to play offense.
The public wants the public option.
It is a slam dunk on a 7-foot basket.

Reid and his team of midgets better figure out how to elevate.
The midterms are approaching and the fans are growing restive...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 4:39 PM   

I think pressuring Reid is one thing; primarying him is another. I think the key is public pressure. As long as the insurance companies have a seat in Mr. Reid's office on a daily basis -- and his constituents sit back and allow it -- we're going to have a hard time getting a public option. They cannot stand the public option. So, the more progressive/grass roots, the better the chances.

But, we have limited resources. Progressives, generally, have limited resources. Think about if we had run a controversial Senate primary in 2008. Would Franken have won? No way. I don't think the answer is to vote out people like Reid. Ask Hatch staffers if they are glad the GOP stayed home and pouted in 2008. Ask them how they feel about criticizing McConnell and the gang for the last several years.

Change is not going to happen overnight. I want a public option. Absolutely. But, if we don't get one, then we go back to making insurance reforms, such as banning rescission, requiring coverage for preexisting conditions, etc. And, we see whether we can get another shot at universal coverage down the road.

People who say this is it -- we'll never have 60 again -- will make sure that we never have 60 again. I think the best ideas are Democratic ideas. We will have 60 again. So, I think the answer is to make sure we continue to enact legislation that improves people's lives -- and it's to make sure that people like Reid (who is fairly liberal for Nevada, anyway) are brought into the fold.

Nobody is perfect. Ask me about Rockefeller today and I love him. When he was handling FISA, though, it was a joke. I'm not for primarying Rockefeller because of his FISA foolishness. The same is true with Reid. He's a good senator. We should keep the pressure on him to make sure the public option appears in the bill. And, he should be able to deliver the votes. But, if Mary Landrieu or Ben Nelson agree to side with the GOP, then he'll still enact meaningful reform that protects consumers (assuming he doesn't try to do an individual mandate without a public option).

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 6:36 PM    in reply to Mateo123

But that's exactly what the plan will be if it doesn't have a public option. I don't think the mandate is in question. In fact, the industry loves the mandate. That's part of what's so stupid about this legislation if it doesn't have a po. If it doesn't have the po, I think they should just scrap it and start over. I don't know how to get there, politically, after all this, but it's really crappy legislation without the po. Nothing holds down costs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 5:09 PM   

I'm in Nevada, count me in.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

sbv

user-pic

October 1, 2009 5:29 PM   

i couldn't agree more; what use has he been as the majority leader? each democrat, each republican in sheep's clothing calling themselves a democrat, every member of congress who owes his position to democrats electing them should be asked one simple question for all of america and their constituents to hear: is health care a right or a privilege?

no more lying, delaying, obstructing, obfuscating, placating their corporate sponsors (which i still think each of their offices should be named like stadiums with their corporate sponsor.) if health care is a right to all citizens, then who should benefit from health care reform? if their only answer is the health care industry, then they need to go!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 1, 2009 7:28 PM    in reply to sbv

I like your idea to name the Senate seat after a corporation like a sports stadium. It would be TRUTH IN ADVERTISING and a good way to communicate the reality of the situation.

Keith Olberman did a good rundown of the Senators and the big insurance companies in their states and called them "the Senator from Aetna, the Senator from Blue Cross .... etc..... so damned true!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 4, 2009 4:24 PM   

BUSTED! Government Healthcare Advocate Admits Public Option is Trojan Horse!
http://02e56fa.netsolhost.com/blog1/index.php/2009/09/21/first-post-of-the-new-era-pickle-1-advoc

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

sbv

user-pic

October 14, 2009 10:31 AM   

the much manipulated but clear AHIP report which clearly shows the health insurance monopolies intent to raise premiums, proves all too conclusively, the much touted "trigger" is already here!

the democrats must surely realize, any watered down health insurance reform that does not provide the means offered by a strong choice of a public option to bring down costs, will only increase cost, cover fewer americans and politically cost the all democrats more than under newt!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

October 14, 2009 11:15 AM   

Put the public option in and make every senator commit one way or the other to what the nation has already said it wants. Then we'll know who to vote for next election.

And frankly I don't give a rats ass for those senators or reps who are from states with more cows than people. Having those persons chair congressional committees is a screwed up idea. We should never have a condition of a committee chair getting more political money from corporate PACS than from real citizens.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

PollTracker

More polls »

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on