TPMDC

Bill Clinton Meeting Today With Senate Democrats

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Fmr. President Bill Clinton

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Senate Democrats today are huddling for their first weekly lunch since the House passed its version of the health care plan and they have a special guest with firsthand experience of what can happen when legislation fails.

Former President Clinton will speak to the caucus about health care, a Democratic source confirmed to TPMDC.

The White House has been coy for months when reporters ask if Clinton (or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) are advising President Obama on health care.

Late update: Another source tells us that Clinton is attending the lunch at the request of Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (who worked in Clinton White House) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Comments (15) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (2)

November 10, 2009 8:53 AM   

Hopefully he will help them find their spines and remind them that the GOP, with 51 Senators, unapologetically used reconciliation to pass Bush's tax cuts.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 10, 2009 12:30 PM    in reply to tommyo

Reconciliation isn't likely to work with health care.

If I were the parliamentarian, I'd find the argument that tax cuts are unambiguously budget-related is a lot easier to buy than a government health option, especially if that insurance option has to charge premiums and basically operate the same as private insurance companies. I'd also find the argument that the individual mandate and employer mandate are budget-related a bit hard to buy.

If the Dems really want to push a health care bill through the Senate that includes a public option (which I believe they should), reconciliation is not the right strategy. The nuclear option would work a lot better.

If the Dems wanted to preserve the filibuster, keeping the Senate in session 24/7 from now to March would have the same ultimate effect as the nuclear option because Senators can only speak twice on a given issue in a legislative day.

The nuclear option is far more legislatively expedient (and would have a much lesser impact on the progress of other legislation), but using it would give the GOP a political argument for ousting the Dems next year.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 10, 2009 3:18 PM    in reply to Icon

"If I were the parliamentarian, I'd find the argument that tax cuts are unambiguously budget-related is a lot easier to buy than a government health option, especially if that insurance option has to charge premiums and basically operate the same as private insurance companies."

You seem like a defeatist, though, or else an advocat for the Republican position.

I don't shinola from this, but Wiki says that the Parliamentarian's role is strictly advisory, although it adds, highly deceptively, that the advise is "almost always followed." When the Republicans didn't like the Parliamentary advice they were getting from Robert Dove in 2001, though, they had Trent Lott as Majority Leader fire him so they call install a Parliamentarian whose advise on reconciliation was a hundred times more amicable to their political strategies. So they followed the advice until they got advice that didn't serve them and then they got a more pliant Parliamentarian. Thus, this position has a recent history of hanky-panky writ large. And the man who gets to fire him is Leader Reid. There may be workarounds that suit the Parliamentarian better than the dry way you put it, and accomplish the same thing. Which workarounds staffers have been working on for months. And the Parliamentarian only advises the Presiding Officer, who will be a Dem. controlled by Reid. And if the Repub's want to appeal, they can try the Supreme Court which will not grant cert. as the Senate makes its rules, the Presiding office has authority, and perhaps since a political question which it cannot resolve is presented. So the Repubs can tea-bag, which they will do anyway.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 10, 2009 5:41 PM    in reply to Overreach THIS!

I'm not a defeatist, I'm a realist. Reconciliation (without changing the parliamentarian to a partisan) is a waste of time as a strategy for passing the bill.

The parliamentarian's only real power (aside from advising the current presiding officer of the Senate) is in the reconciliation process. The Parliamentarian may rule on the subject of whether provisions of a reconciliation bill are acceptably relevant to the budget resolution instructions. It would take 60 votes for the Senate to override that ruling.

Yes, Reid could fire the Parliamentarian and replace him with a partisan. But then they'd might as well use the nuclear option anyway; there isn't much political difference.


Honestly, in terms of parliamentary procedure, the Senate's rules are a little bizarre. Typically, unlimited debate is allowed, but the body's standing rules can normally be changed by simple majority (this is the case in the House, Robert's Rules of Order and every other parliamentary authority I'm familiar with).

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 10, 2009 6:23 PM    in reply to Icon

Well, I'm definitely in over my head now. Just not competent to debate it with you. I hope they have wiggle room that you are not presently seeing. I am worried about Traitor Joe and his "conscience.> I think his filibuster vote is bought and paid for, and Dems won't get it back. He bloviates about what torments him about this, but I fear his real reason is "I already sold my vote to the insurance industry that by the way pays my wife for some sinecure and contributes to our family income."

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 11, 2009 6:53 AM    in reply to Overreach THIS!

I wish there was more wiggle room. Parliamentary procedure can be obtrusive to actually accomplishing things, especially when the rules (such as in the Senate's case) don't make logical sense.

The Senate is using a rule set that's more appropriate for a small body of maybe 10 people. It's the wrong set up for a legislature.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 11, 2009 8:29 AM    in reply to Icon

Again, I appreciate and respect you for taking time to share the information. And again, with respect, I hope you are missing something.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 11, 2009 10:08 AM    in reply to Overreach THIS!

Respectfully, I hope you're right.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 10, 2009 1:41 PM    in reply to tommyo

More than likely, it will be Bill and Rahm bullying Harry.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 10, 2009 10:12 AM   

To paraphrase Joe Lieberman, for Reid to NOT use reconciliation would be to not use his prerogative as Senate Majority Leader.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

CJ

user-pic

November 10, 2009 10:37 AM   

I'd love to be a fly on the wall for this meeting.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 10, 2009 1:26 PM   

We he speaks southern so maybe he can explain to Blanche Lincoln how Arkansas politics work. Maybe he can even tell her he'd campaign for her. Better yet he should tell her he's thinking of running against her. Hah.

Maybe he can also conduct a little seminar for Mary Landrieu who seems awfully confused about how this whole health care thing works.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 10, 2009 1:59 PM   

Bill Clinton basically said to conservative Dems in August, "Look, pass the bill and your popularity will rise." http://bit.ly/1JvUNM

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 10, 2009 4:37 PM   

It probably isn't a good idea for a former US president to employ sexual slang to demean and belittle US taxpayers who have had their medicare and SS looted by a corrupt and deceitful government.

Hi. I'm Bill Clinton. Don't look at those empty trusts that you've been paying into your whole life. Look over here at this shiny new healthcare bill. That's the ticket. It's moral...really. Would I lie to you?


Pssst. You guys, in the Senate. You'd better vote yes for this bill right now before the baby boomers figure out that they've been robbed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 11, 2009 12:44 PM    in reply to Silence

You know what?

You are a perfect idiot. And there is a place for people like you! Www.redstate.com Nincompoops welcome.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on