TPMDC

Lincoln: "I'll Filibuster A Public Option Bill"

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Conservative Democrats are making it very clear that they'll switch their vote and kill the bill down the line if the public option doesn't get stripped out of it.

"Let me be perfectly clear," Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) said on the floor of the Senate. "I am opposed to a new government administered health care plan as a part of comprehensive health insurance reform, and I will not vote in favor of the proposal that has been introduced by Leader Reid as it is written.... I've already alerted the Leader and I'm promising my colleagues that I'm prepared to vote against moving to the next stage of consideration as long as a government-run public option is included."

That's pretty compatible with what Mary Landrieu told reporters earlier this afternoon.

"I believe it's going to be very clear at some point very soon that there are not 60 votes for the current provision in the bill, and that the leader and the leadership are going to have to make a decision and I trust that they will figure out how to do that," Landrieu said.

Join the Conversation!

104 comments

Recommend Recommend (0)

November 21, 2009 3:07 PM   

Reconciliation. Stop letting these grandstanders hold the Democratic Caucus hostage.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 3:07 PM   

(As posted earlier in a response to another blog posting)

SweetJeezus! Just where do these people get the idea that they can defy their own caucus on procedural votes? Why is Reid even entertaining such threats? These audacious pissants should understand that they are Democrats or they suffer the consequences. Period. They can vote their conscience on the issue when it gets to the floor. But they have NO standing to defy their caucus and threaten to sustain a filibuster launched against their leadership.

I somehow think LBJ would be serving up Rocky Mountain Oysters to his feckless colleagues today as a means of getting the point across. Reid and the others would do well to channel a little bit of LBJ and put these jackasses out on the limb and challenge them to defeat health care reform. Enough compromise. Call the vote.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 3:13 PM    in reply to SleepinJeezus

I feel sorry for Reid, but there is not a single leadership vein in his nerves.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:47 PM    in reply to kash79



So far . . .

60-39 to allow the bill to the floor for debate?

Next step for these whining obstructionists?

~OGD~

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 3:14 PM    in reply to SleepinJeezus

Reid and the others would do well to channel a little bit of LBJ and put these jackasses out on the limb and challenge them to defeat health care reform

Make it very clear that the message from Democrats will be that Landrieu, Lincoln and Lieberman killed the desperately needed healthcare reform that millions of Americans deserve.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 3:31 PM    in reply to CT Voter

Absolutely! And make it clear that there will be no place to hide, either, should they choose to defy their own leadership in this way. Their political career is over, even if it means we've got to take buses into Arkansas from around the country to campaign heavily for their opponent, be it in the Primary or the General election. This abuse of the filibuster has got to stop, or we might just as well cede our government over entirely to the NoItAlls who will forever promote the status quo in favor of the oligarchs who now own Congress.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 3:43 PM    in reply to SleepinJeezus

But the kind of pressure you're talking about putting on Senator Lincoln is the enemy she knows. It looks (from watching her speech today) like she's more afraid of the enemy she doesn't know. I am sure re-election is on her mind and she's trying to keep together an uneasy alliance of centrist elements of both parties in her home state.

That said I agree that this is a game of chicken that, should she and Senator Landrieu play it fully, should mean their downfall. On the other side of the aisle, Senator Snowe is playing a similar game.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 3:52 PM    in reply to mikehalloran

You are right, of course, about this being a game of chicken. But we have compromised to the point that any further compromise on the public option simply hands over 60 million new customers to the Health Insurance Industry while doing nothing of substance to change the system.

And so it is time to draw the line in the sand for these gamers and dare them to cross it. Should they decide to do so, make reform of the filibuster a key Democratic initiative and let these pissants serve as the poster child. Expel them from the caucus and do everything possible to target them for defeat next election.

And then move on to reconciliation to gain health care reform. And take no prisoners. Time to play hardball.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 4:28 PM    in reply to mikehalloran

Centrist elements? Stop letting the fascist fringe get away with labeling themselves centrists. They vote to kill people and their label ought to fit their actions.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 4:57 PM    in reply to bluebell

Oh for God's sake? Fascist? Opposing the public option makes you a fascist? It may make them a lot of things, and indeed Landrieu and Lincoln have caused me to unleash more than a few of the uglier words in my vocabulary lately, but fascist? That's like Beck reasoning.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 5:09 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

You only enable them. I don't know what is NOT fascist about the corporately owned in states like LA and AK making joining the army and marching off to war the only way you can get a higher education or healthcare. They are a lot closer to that label than you like to believe. Keep at it and we'll get CorporateCare just like I predicted.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 6:27 PM    in reply to bluebell

These are not fascists. I am all for letting Dem senators hang themselves in a game of political chicken if they must. No party capitulation to those seeking to make a name for themselves by steering these efforts off track.

But to call the right leaning democrats and left leaning republicans fascists is to cave to politics of shrill name calling. Fascists exists way out on the edges of the fringe right. Not between the left and the right mainstream, where much of Senator Landrieu's and Senator Lincoln's constituents are.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 6:39 PM    in reply to mikehalloran

When you come from a poor state like AK or LA and you willfully vote to send poor kids off to war but you deny poor families healthcare because you have been bought by corporate power what are you? OK, call them Peronistas or something, Don't Cry for Me New Orleans or whatever. This country has moved so far to the right and folks have been so brainwashed by the right that you can't see the evidence in front of your eyes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:54 PM    in reply to mikehalloran

a game of what?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 9:35 PM    in reply to Bwakfat

Chicken, but never cheekhen. It's kinda' like a game involving peckers but no pitchforks.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 10:13 PM    in reply to SleepinJeezus

=D

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 4:00 PM    in reply to SleepinJeezus

I love it when Republicans who buck the leadership are called mavericks by those on the left, but when a Dem bucks the leadership they are traitors. A good dose of hypocrisy always gets the blood flowing.

And it is amusing to read stuff from people who claim that these Senators need to decide whether they are conservative or Dem. I can tell you now that if you are from the states of the senators we are discussing and you have a D behind your name you better be moderately conservative or a war hero(Bob Kerrey) or you aren't getting elected. The Pat Leahy's, Ted "Manslaughter" Kennedy's and Chuck Schumer's are not getting elected in Arkansas, Nebraska or Louisiana; Kennedy isn't getting elected anywhere actually.

Furthermore, it is quite simply amazing that you people seem absolutely unable to grasp the fact that this bill is unpopular in this country and is getting more unpopular by the day, just like Obama. Those who think Nelson, Landrieu and Lincoln are going to pay a heavy price for not supporting this thing are quite simply delusional. Dems in districts or states that voted for Bush or McCain by 20% (such as, oh, I don't know Arkansas, Nebraska and Louisiana for example)are not going to commit career suicide simply because party-line robots like the people on this site or the raving anti-semites at Daily Kos get pissed and throw a tantrum.

As for bucking the DEM leadership and committing political suicide, isn't it awesome that Joe Lieberman is an independent?

What is that sound I hear? Oh, it's just the sound of the public option going down in flames.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 4:14 PM    in reply to masanf

First of all, you have a LOT of nerve talking about 'party line robots'. Your fellow do-nothing Republicans are the poster children of 'party line robots'. Do ANY of them have a thought in their head besides what they are told? Do YOU? And, furthermore, if you think you can convince the MAJORITY of Americans in this country, that the HCR bill is "unpopular", well, I think you are the one that has the label pinned to his forehead: DELUSIONAL!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:42 PM    in reply to newpantaloons

We need to start petitioning the lovely people that run TPM for an Ignore option. The the retards could rant, and we wouldn't have to be bothered by them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 4:32 PM    in reply to masanf

If you want match state to state, why don't we compare the quality of healthcare in Massachusetts and Vermont to the 3rd world version in Louisiana and Arkansas? Nothing like a red stater to brag about being 3rd world. Whatever happened to the days when the US strove to be the best in the world?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 1:39 AM    in reply to bluebell

"Whatever happened to the days when the US strove to be the best in the world?"

well, now it's enough to just declare yourself better than everyone else. saves all the time and hassle that striving used to cost. and for that matter it does away with useless details like accountability. or reality. some might call it cutting corners, but most just agree that it's delviering efficinecies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 4:32 PM    in reply to masanf

Kennedy isn't getting elected anywhere actually

That's looking like the closest thing to accurate political analysis you have offered here. Pretty thin gruel, mate.

Your search for equivalence is interesting. For example, you will notice that nowhere in my comments have I mentioned any criticism of the Republican filibuster. Yet, you complain about the hypocrisy here. Well, then, tell me about the last time a Republican threatened to vote against the GOP caucus on a procedural vote.

~crickets~

Yeah, I thought so.

You are forgiven your lack of attention to detail and your apparent partisan approach to reality. (i.e. "...it is quite simply amazing that you people seem absolutely unable to grasp the fact that this bill is unpopular in this country and is getting more unpopular by the day...") It is, after all, most assuredly difficult to participate in the real world when you have your head so firmly shoved up your arse.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:40 PM    in reply to SleepinJeezus

This old girl just can't give it up, can she? Sure hope she's primaried. I'm impressed with the dem Lt. Gov.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 6:54 PM    in reply to masanf

masanf,

flinging the "hypocrisy" label at one party or another is a silly endeavor.

As for bucking leadership, you don't buck leadership on a core issue or keep it from coming for a vote. That would be like a Republican bucking leadership and voting NO for a tax cut bill.

Ben Nelson made his name and money in the insurance industry. After graduating from law school, Nelson landed a job as assistant general counsel for Central National Insurance Group of Omaha. In 1975, he became state insurance director before going back to work for Central National Insurance as an executive vice president and eventually president.

Nelson is neither a Democrat nor a Nebraska Senator here, he's acting on behalf of the Insurance Industry. He's the one that got the repeal of the anti trust plum for the insurance companies thrown out.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:50 PM    in reply to masanf

Thank you, sir or ma'm! The Democrats on this site, on Daily Kos and on Huffington Post are out of touch with reality. The majority of the country does not support this bill. It is bad legislation and doesn't even do what people want it to do. And, the fact that Obama and the Democrats are willing to ram this down our throats on some sort of obsessive partisan crusade is appalling. I voted for Obama and I was holding out hope that he would be the man I thought he was, but he is not. His support of these health care reform bills is a slap in the face to more than half of America!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 9:28 PM    in reply to Tyche

You voted for Obama? Yeah, right.

Let's re-do this health care reform plan and adopt the plan that Obama campaigned on. I would certainly find that to be more satisfying than this proposal which has been compromised in almost every detail to appease the insurance industry. Being an Obama supporter, you will then be in support of it, too, right?

Yeah, I thought so. You voted for Obama? Yeah, right. And I just returned from my weekly excursion to Mars.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 9:31 PM    in reply to SleepinJeezus

I voted for Obama because he seemed reasonable, moderate and intelligent. I didn't consider him to be a traditional big government liberal. I wanted the war-making to stop and I wanted a president who would take climate change seriously. That's why I voted for Obama.

Too bad that this health care disaster makes it almost certain that cap-and-trade or other climate change legislation will go nowhere.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 9:41 PM    in reply to Tyche

Can you state precisely what is so disastrous about this health care bill. And while you are talking about it's so called unpopularity, you might note that the element of the bill - the public option - that Landrieu, Lincoln, Lieberman, and Nelson all oppose, presently has about 60% support in most recent opinion polls.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 10:23 PM    in reply to El Puerco

People don't support the public option if they think there is a chance that their employer will drop their existing coverage and push people into the government plan. Polling shows that people are buying the idea of "choice."

Recent polling shows more people opposed to the health care bills in Congress than in favor. Many would prefer we do nothing rather than enact one of the Dem bills.

I'm philosophically opposed to more government involvement in health care. Medicare is unsustainable. Medicaid is probably one of the biggest factors in California's financial collapse. Why would we want the government to expand their role in an area that is already bankrupting our country?

It's my belief that the government's involvement in health care starting with Medicare and Medicaid has been a major contributing factor in the increase in health care costs since the 1960s.

I also believe that we need to put people in charge of their own health care, and get employers out of it. The Wyden-Bennett bill would have done that, but Obama apparently was afraid to do something that innovative and bold. Instead, he made deals with major health care players and the unions to pass something that in my view resembles the bank bailouts!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 12:17 AM    in reply to Tyche

You clearly have no grasp on the contents of this bill, the state of public opinion, or health care economics as a whole.

Let's go through the evidence this one by one.

1) Right now, employers have more incentive to stop offering health insurance than they would under either the Senate or House bill, both of which introduce penalties for larger employers that don't offer insurance. With that said, if your employer did drop your coverage under reform, you would not be dumped onto the individual market with potentially no chance of getting reinsured nor would you automatically be "pushed into the government plan." You would, instead, participate in an exchange that would offer a number of private plans.

2) Poll after poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly support the public option, particularly the more limited plan offered in both bills. The recent ABC/WaPo poll shows that about half of the people who oppose the bill as a whole support the public option. Moreover, CNN's polling demonstrated that about a fifth of the opposition to the bill comes from people who don't think it's liberal enough. Needless to say, your assumptions about why people oppose the bill are inaccurate as broad generalizations.

3) The public option is not structured like Medicaid or Medicare. It is not financed out of the federal budget but by premiums paid by participants. I actually think this is a flaw in the plan, but according to the CBO, it still reduces the cost of the bill.

4) Every developed country on the planet that relies on a government insurance plan is able to provide health coverage at a lower cost than the absurdly expensive health care we have in the US. In most cases, as in France and Spain, the health care system is even better. But, again, the public option isn't anything like these systems, but this does contradict your evidently unsupported "beliefs."

5) In regards to your beliefs, do you believe seniors would be able to afford health insurance on the private market? If not, how would you propose providing them health care without an entity that can negotiate Medicare-level rates on their behalf?

6) The public option was part of Obama's health care proposals during the campaign, so there's no reason you shouldn't have thought he would support it when you voted for him. Of course, it's obvious that you haven't made the slightest effort to even understand this legislation, so the fact that you didn't think a public option would be part of his plan isn't much of a surprise. Maybe you should actually make an effort to understand this policy instead of trying to pass off vague rhetoric and inaccurate boilerplate as "philosophical differences."

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 1:44 AM    in reply to Stroszek

Well, I haven't read all 2,000 pages of the bill, if that's what you mean.

1. Yes, because the cost of health coverage is getting more expensive, employers are becoming more and more squeezed when providing benefits to employees. That's why people are afraid that employers might drop their coverage and force people into the exchanges where the public plan would be offered.

2. I think I'm correct about why people say they support the public option. People are all for choices. And, the public plan sounds like just another choice. And, people hate insurance companies, so they buy into this idea that the public option will give the insurance companies a run for their money. But a public option is not necessary to create more competition in the insurance marketplace.

3. Everybody knows that through the public option the Democrats want to open the door to universal, government run single payer. It's a back door though. They know the public won't buy it coming in the front door. At least people like Bernie Sanders is up front about it.

4. Why is it necessary that the United States have health care systems like people in Europe? I agree that their systems sound more efficient, but Europeans are not Americans. They are more comfortable with a centralized government running everything. And, they pay higher taxes. Americans value freedom, choice and independence.

5. Medicare is full of waste and fraud, and it's jacked up the cost of insurance for everyone else. Something needs to be done to fix it. It's going broke anyway. That's why we're having this push for reform. The government cannot continue to afford the entitlements. Adding veterans into the mix and the government provides health care coverage for a very large percentage of the population.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 10:44 AM    in reply to Stroszek

"Poll after poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly support the public option,"

but those are only facts...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 12:17 PM    in reply to JEP07

Not really.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 12:21 AM    in reply to Tyche

Yes, Obama supporting the health care platform that he ran on during the election in which you voted for him is a slap in the face! Clearly, he should be listening to slim plurality of what pollsters deem likely voters for the 2010 mid-terms instead of the majority that actually elected him in 2008.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 12:57 AM    in reply to Stroszek

I stated above that I voted for Obama because I wanted the wars stopped and I wanted a president who took climate change seriously. Health care was not a key issue for me. However, my impression was that Obama's health care plan was not as stringent as Hillary's and didn't require an individual mandate. I believe that was the point of contention between Obama and Hillary.

And, even with climate change legislation, I preferred the idea of a carbon tax over cap-and-trade, which I thought sounded too complicated and too bureaucratic. I believe the cap-and-trade plan evolved from work done at the Center for American Progress.

But, I admit I am not a wonk and don't read position papers of candidates because they often don't follow through on what they say in them anyway.

But, basically, after McCain was chosen, I felt that he must be stopped. I didn't think he was tempermentally suited to be president and I thought he would be too much like Bush when it came to foreign policy.

So, I didn't agree with Obama on everything, but didn't want McCain, and thought Obama would be a step in the right direction. I seriously did not believe that he was going to increase the size and the scope of government like this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 1:07 AM    in reply to Tyche

You oppose an individual mandate, but elsewhere you lament the fact that we're not going with Wyden-Bennett... a plan that relies on a strong individual mandate. Mmmkay...

I seriously did not believe that he was going to increase the size and the scope of government like this.

As I noted above, the public option is not a government program like Medicaid or Medicare. It is basically a non-profit insurance company that is administered by the Department of Health & Human Services but is financed entirely by the premiums paid by policy holders. It is not financed out of the federal budget, it is legally bound to adjust rates on policy holders to ensure it breaks even, and as the CBO has pointed out repeatedly, it lowers the overall cost of the bill. The public option itself is not an entitlement program by any means. It is, in fact, a rather ingenious way of combining the advantages of a government-administered insurance program with the incentives against waste that we see with privately-administered programs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 2:03 AM    in reply to Stroszek

I'm not necessarily opposed to an individual mandate. I don't believe everybody has to have the same level of coverage though. I was just pointing out that the emphasis during the campaign was on the individual mandate, not on the public option. An Obama public option was rarely mentioned in the media during the campaign.

The difference between the current Democratic bills and the Wyden-Bennett plan is that the Wyden-Bennet plan will actually do something to reduce the costs of health care while increasing health care coverage to about 99% of the people. It starts to melt away the marriage between employers and health care benefits, so insurance would be portable. It gives individuals more control and choice. AND, WYDEN-BENNETT ACTUALLY HAS BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. I'm a big fan of the Wyden-Bennett plan and think it's a crime that we're not moving in that direction instead of the one we seem to be heading in. Ron Wyden has dedicated many years to the health care reform issue. The fact that he's being ignored makes me think the Senate leadership is brain dead.

If the public option doesn't work, or it runs out of money, you know the taxpayer will be on the hook to fund it. It reminds me of Fannie and Freddie!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 12:25 AM    in reply to Tyche

According to the most recent ABC/WaPo poll, 48% of Americans support the proposal. Are they out of touch with reality too?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 1:07 AM    in reply to Tyche

I voted for Obama and I was holding out hope that he would be the man I thought he was, but he is not. His support of these health care reform bills is a slap in the face to more than half of America!

So... you voted for the candidate who had these planks in his campaign platform:

The Obama plan both builds upon and improves our current insurance system, upon which most Americans continue to rely, and leaves Medicare intact for older and disabled Americans. The Obama plan also addresses the large gaps in coverage that leave 45 million Americans uninsured. Specifically, the Obama plan will: (1) establish a new public insurance program available to Americans who neither qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP nor have access to insurance through their employers, as well as to small businesses that want to offer insurance to their employees; (2) make available the National Health Insurance Exchange to help Americans and businesses that want to purchase private health insurance directly; (3) require all employers to contribute towards health coverage for their employees; (4) mandate all children have health care coverage; (5) expand Medicaid and SCHIP to cover more of the least well-off among us; and (6) allow state flexibility for state health reform plans.

OK, got it. Next time do read up before you vote for someone, OK?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 12:19 AM    in reply to masanf

Heh, it's fun to watch the trolls coming out and freaking out over tonight's vote.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 9:05 PM    in reply to SleepinJeezus

Suffer the consequences? Are you kidding? We're asking Lincoln to fall on her sword, to take one for the good guys. She can't possibly be reelected if she sides with health care reform. We have to persuade her to sacrifice her career. She deserves an ambassador appointment at the very least.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 12:23 AM    in reply to rlfast

That's not true at all. Mid-terms are base elections. The Republicans who will turn out in 2010 are not going to vote for Lincoln no matter what. She needs to turn out Arkansas Dems to win, and they overwhelmingly support health care reform.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 3:11 PM   

There's a political version of the 'uncanny valley' effect where opposition to something popular has continuing, positive effects for a politician in 'maverickyness' and 'integritude', right up until you're the vote blocking the passage of motherhood and apple pie, at which case you look like a moron, and a stubborn moron to boot.

Lincoln, Landrieu and Co. are playing chicken. They're right up to the edge of the political version of the 'uncanny valley'. I'm not sure they are smart enough to calculate exactly where it is.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 3:22 PM   

but isnt that stupid? why cant they just vote against the bill, just vote no on the bill?

somehow i doubt that, no matter what this conservadems say, the would never filibuster their own party on HEALTHCARE, of all issues. no way. that would be political suicide.

Reid needs to call their bluff. no triggers, just the opt out.

These so called conservadems need to decide if they are democrats or conservatives.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 3:50 PM   

Honestly, I support ANY bill. Why? When Social Security was first passed, 2/3 of black Americans were left out. FDR wasn't happy, but he knew that he had to get something passed--he knew that eventually the crappy parts could, and would, be amended. The point is to get it rolling. At this point, I'd take anything. If we miss this chance, we may never get another. Pragmatism is your best way toward progress.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 5:01 PM    in reply to ilovebacon

I don't know. Social Security was incomplete. But passing it didn't involve a record transfer of the country's wealth to private companies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 5:59 PM    in reply to ilovebacon

Then why not simply expand Medicare? The real question to ask is why the Democratic Party will not support the logical extension of Democratic programs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 6:21 PM    in reply to bluebell

How would you pay for that. Explain to us.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 6:33 PM    in reply to geofu54

I would do it the old fashioned way - progressive taxation. You know, one of those old things from the era when progressive actually meant something.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 7:06 PM    in reply to geofu54

geo,

well, you could start paying for it by paying only 3% for administration as Medicare does instead of 33% that private industry pays.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 7:55 PM    in reply to geofu54

Most European countries have a very efficient value added tax that helps to fund much of their social legislation. Look at what they pay for health care compared to what we pay now - and they get better results. Forget Europe - look at Canada. Even the uber-conservative Economist Magazine says the most logical solution to our health care debacle is single payer with a VAT.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 6:33 PM    in reply to bluebell

That's a good question. Interestingly, the public option is being opposed precisely because of the potential that it may one day be expanded to "Medicare for all." Thus, clearly when a public option that doesn't even have to be accepted by a state is deemed as "too much government involvement," it should intimate that current political pressures -- ideological, lobbyist-driven, personal, etc. -- are too great to substantiate an extension of Medicare.

Additionally, it seems that the populist-oriented political pressures, vis-a-vis opposition to an expansion of Medicare, are arising out of a mistrust of government. With incredible cynicism and vitriol lobbed, almost incessantly, at the government by the left and the right, it should be no surprise that many people are fearful of expanding government. Social progress in today's hypercynical, hyperpolarized (and over-polled) political climate is all the more difficult.

[Note: Some of that cynicism is deserved. Much of it, however, seems to be a product of our hyperpolarize, hyperpartisan political environment (e.g., misguided Republican belief that Democrats are truly "out to destroy this country.")]

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 8:03 PM    in reply to hewhohasnoname

Public opposition is to these health care bills, not the public option. The public supports the public option. There are good reasons not to support this legislation. I think they have it right: they want the option to buy their insurance from the government. They're open to Medicare for All, too. It provides lots of choice. Canadians can go to any doctor they choose.

The opposition to the public option is purely political and corporate sponsored. A tiny fraction of wing-nuts also oppose it on ideological grounds. But general public supports it, and this support prefigures crpyto-single payer acceptance. I, for one, would prefer to cut to the chase, but that's a question of strategy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 9:43 PM    in reply to bluebell

Medicare expansion is in the bill. It includes everyone up to 133% of the poverty line, without the variety of restrictions that states presently put on it. This is a crappy bill in many respects, but even without the PO it is worth it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 9:45 PM    in reply to El Puerco

Sorry, I meant to say Medicaid expansion.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 8:07 PM    in reply to El Puerco

I agree, but think we should trade the PO for repealing McCarran-Ferguson, the Kucinich Amendment (ERISA waiver) and dropping the mandate.
No public option, no mandate. Then, separately, repeal McCarran-Ferguson and pass the ERISA waiver for states that pass single-payer legislation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 3:50 PM   

If Senator Lincoln wants to vote against the wishes of her voters and the country, that is her prerogative, and she will be held accountable for this in her next election.

However, participating in an anti-American filibuster in order to block democracy and block a vote, suggesting her opinion should carry more weight than the votes of her peers and of the majority, is simply wrong. Blocking democracy and blocking a vote with a filibuster is about as anti-American as it gets.

If we voters attempted to filibuster Senator Lincoln's next election, we would likely be thrown in jail. Why isn't there a law preventing a minority group of Senators from blocking democracy?

More thoughts in my blog at http://blog.poormanslobbyist.org

The Poor Man's Lobbyist
http://www.poormanslobbyist.org

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 4:09 PM    in reply to PoorMansLobbyist.org

Amazing how filibusters weren't anti-American in the minds of the left during the period between January 2001 and Noveber 2006. I wonder why that is? Maybe somebody can research what exactly happened during that time period. And then when you are done, you can break out a dictionary and look up the term hypocrite.

Why isn't there a law preventing a minority group of Senators from blocking a vote? I am not exactly sure on that, but I think it may just be because of rules and traditions that go back a really long time. That may have just a little bit to do with it. But hey, why not ditch that simply because liberals don't like how this debate is going.

And the voters of this country do not want this bill. EVERY SINGLE POLL DEMONSTRATES THAT. When are you imbeciles going to get that into your concrete skulls?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 4:24 PM    in reply to masanf

Do you even realize how stupid you sound? Here you are talking about 'hypocrits', and you aren't even cognizant of the unabashed hypocrisy in your own party. Believe me, everyone else is. And then you talk about how the Democrats were doing all this 'filibustering' during the Bush years. Well, I think you're the one who needs to learn how to do some research. When you do, you will see that NEVER in the history of the Senate (that would be "NEVER"), has ANY party used the filibuster to the extent that this Republican party has used it. The filibuster was not, and should not, be used to OBSTRUCT EVERY LAST POSSIBLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION by the OPPOSING party. That is not and was not the purpose of the filibuster.

And, by the way, you also need to learn to read the POLLS!

(Why, oh why, can't the Republicans find someone with some brains to do their 'trolling' for them???)?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 9:18 PM    in reply to newpantaloons

Because if they had brains, they wouldn't be Rethuglicans?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 4:29 PM    in reply to masanf

"Every single poll"?? Funny. All the polls I've been reading have made it clear that Americans support a public option. In fact, in some areas the support appears to be overwhelming. Here's a story about those "unsupportive" polls right here: New Polls Show Solid Support for Public Option

Do polls say that there's opposition to the bills before the House and Senate? Sure, but of course the context is that millions of dollars have been spent by craven special interests like the insurance companies and their Republican toadies to scare the stuffing out of people with flagrant lies about the legislation. The fact is that people WANT what the legislation is meant to accomplish. If they oppose the legislation it's not because they don't want the contemplated goal of the legislation, but because the malevolent forces of profit over people have prevailed in their lies. What the Republicans and their special interest cronies have been doing can hardly be termed a "debate".

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 5:13 PM    in reply to Dominica57

A percentage of those opposing the bills are probably doing so from a principled, 'good housekeeping' - or, alternately, a progressive - point of view. I see where they're coming from. Many mature observers of this debate are aware there are lots of perfectly functioning single payer systems out there, ready to be applied right off the shelf. They just need to be sold.

I'm ready to see compromises made along the way, just not on this scale.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 7:30 PM    in reply to Dominica57

A majority of the nation as a whole may support a public option, but a majority of Lincoln's, Landrieu's and Nelson's constituents do not. And they know that voting to invoke cloture is essentially the same as voting for outright passage, since the Dems clearly have 50+1 for a public option. And it will be treated as such by their next Republican re-election opponent.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 9:48 PM    in reply to jdb316

A variety of polls have shown that the public option has strong majority support in Arkansas. Not, however, in Nebraska.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 6:11 PM    in reply to masanf

Nice of you to show up and give a crap after napping for the past 8 years. Forgive us if we dismiss your "babe in the woods" routine.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 9:17 PM    in reply to masanf

When you show us a single poll that says America doesn't want the bill. See, we're not delusional. We live in reality.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 9:46 PM    in reply to masanf

Please identify a single key fillibuster that the Democrats used to block the Republicans from 2001-2006.

--Crickets--

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 11:48 PM    in reply to masanf

First of all, the bill is going to pass. It's going to happen. Sorry.

Second, most polls, such as the recent ABC/WaPo poll, show that public opinion is basically deadlined.

Third, the question is to what extent the public option, a provision that receives a strong majority of support in poll after poll, will be included. If you're so concerned about what the voters want, then you would be ardently supporting a public option. But I'm guessing that inconvenient fact won't manage to penetrate that gelatinous mass you call a head.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 1:58 AM    in reply to masanf

Amazing how filibusters weren't anti-American in the minds of the left during the period between January 2001 and Noveber 2006. I wonder why that is? Maybe somebody can research what exactly happened during that time period.

Done. And done.

107th Congress (2001-02) (Democratic-controlled): 61 filibusters.

108th Congress (2002-04) (Republican-controlled): 49 filibusters.

109th Congress (2005-06) (Republican-controlled): 54 filibusters.

110th Congress (2007-08) (Democratic-controlled): 104 filibusters -- as of October 2008. And that session of Congress wasn't even over yet.

More links coming up.

And then when you are done, you can break out a dictionary and look up the term hypocrite.

When the Democrats made news with one of their rare filibuster threats against radical right Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito, Republicans were jumping up and down on national TV frothing "UP OR DOWN VOTE!!!" "UP OR DOWN VOTE!!!" and warning about "nuclear options" in the Senate to destroy the filibuster rule. And of course the Republicans filibustered far more of Clinton's judicial nominees (and are doing the same with Obama's) than the reverse.

From the first link above:

When Democrats were more selectively using the filibuster while Republicans controlled the Senate, Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott was quoted in 2003 as saying, "'[Filibustering] is wrong. ... And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I'm perfectly prepared to blow this place up. No problem." (The Clarion-Ledger, May 23, 2003) But now that his party is in the minority, Lott says: "'The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail...and so far, it's working for us.'" (Roll Call, April 18, 2007)

Maybe that's what you meant.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 2:12 AM    in reply to gharlane

To make the point more succinctly: Republicans in the 110th Congress (2006-07) filibustered twice as many bills as any party has done in the history of this country. And less than halfway through the 111th Congress, the Republicans are right on track for another record-smasher, with 60 filibusters already. Full data here.

I think we now have a good handle on the definition of "hypocrite". And thy name is "Republican." (Locally, thy name is masanf.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 3:53 PM   

Spoken like a true corporatewhore

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 5:54 PM   

Just did some brief research on Arkansan's views on HCR. Seems they do want a debate on HCR, but don't want Gov't run HC. Kind of explains Blanche's position. I have to wonder how the polls were phrased. Being a very rural, conservative state, regardless of BL's Dem designation, I would guess that there are a large number of Beckies and Rushers in the general population.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 6:04 PM    in reply to Jackster

So she doesn't have to vote for the bill, but FILLIBUSTER with Republicans??? Traitor bitch.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 6:15 PM    in reply to impik

Fully agree, she'd better stay on her ass during filibuster time.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 6:11 PM    in reply to Jackster

But that's why the idea of opt-out is included; if her voters *really* don't want it, her state could just opt out. She has good excuses there. But she outright rejects the entire idea of public option, however, AND says to *filibuster*, even if her opposition against her own party's bill badly affects people in other states who desperately need it.

She's a corporate whore, plain and simple. She is motivated by insurance/pharma industries, not by the party, not by people.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 9:50 PM    in reply to Jackster

Can you provide some sources for your research.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 11:52 PM    in reply to Jackster

So... the Senate bill has an opt-out provision if Arkansans are really worried about the currently uninsured and self-insured having the choice of signing up for a public plan.

With that said, the public option isn't government-run health care. It's government-run health insurance.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 6:22 PM   

I think the Opt-Out is genius. Let those Red states' residents get chewed up by the Big IC's While they're at it let them opt out of Medicare and Medicade, SS, and federal dollars for infrastructure. I'm still concerned that because this reform is so diluted and polluted that it may prove ineffective and not up to it's promise.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 9:23 AM    in reply to Jackster

"Let those Red states' residents get chewed up by the Big IC's "

LMAO... Who the hell do you think the rest of the country gets for insurance providers? And why would anyone want the PO as it will be more expensive!

You guys always bitch about so-called big insurance. Tooo funny... have any of you even wondered how much the "reformed" premiums go up and surly they will.

Hey here is a question for you cheer-leaders of this fiasco. What exactly is in any of these bills that will bring DOWN the cost of HC?

Oh and how do you justify cutting Medicare by nearly 500 billion?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 6:35 PM   

Simple solution: reconciliation. Why let thugs like Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu derail the biggest landmark piece of legislation since Medicare and Civil rights. Blanche Lincoln is going to face a primary challenge mostly likely.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 6:44 PM    in reply to ru4862

agree

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 6:45 PM   

When you come from a poor state like AK or LA and you willfully vote to send poor kids off to war but you deny poor families healthcare because you have been bought by corporate power what are you?

Stupid hicks? Oops, not very PC of me...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 6:47 PM   

Blanche Lincoln will be defeated by a Republican and run into the arms of the Health Insurance Industry with a seven-figure contract waiting for her.

Cloture is not a vote for the bill - why do the Dems accept Republican framing. Remember the calls of "up or down" whenever the Democrats threatened to filibuster?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:26 PM   

Then why did you vote for it in the first place Blanche old dear?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:46 PM   

Blanche Lincoln must actually believe she can win reelection by killing the health care bill. Sad times, these are.

So, what is the answer? Is reconciliation an option? I don't see the House going without a public option. I mean, it barely passed the House. Those who oppose it would have opposed it without a public option, too. They object to generally helping out their fellow citizen. SO, if Blanche cannot bring herself to vote for a public option, we need to get rid of the filibuster. There is no way that people should have that much influence. If fifty nine senators vote for a major piece of legislation, the bill should pass.

Every bill deserves an up or down vote. Period.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:59 PM   

The message is clear. They are not democrats and have no party loyalty. The highest order of Obama's agenda was health care reform. The way to address these three punks from a party need is that they recieve no campaign funds, stripped of their committee assignments and left to their own for re-election. Support of the three is not in the party's or country interests.

The argument that they are better than a republican holding their seat is naive foolish beliefs because what is evident is stopping reform today and playing right into the GOP plans for 2010 and 2012.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 9:11 PM   

Blanche is going to lose re-election, no matter what she does. If she is smart, she will do the right thing for her party and hope she gets appointed to another position.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 9:53 PM   

Yes, it's time to put Blanche out to pasture. The sad fact, however, is that she will have already done her damage. Going forward, our task is to clear out the last remaining Rethuglians in the Blue northeast. We MUST win the 2010 Senate race in NH, we MUST get Sestak elected as the new Democratic Senator in PA, and we MUST eliminate Snowe and Collins.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 10:28 PM    in reply to El Puerco

I guess this is similar to that ideological purging that many conservatives are engaging in right now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 5:28 PM    in reply to Tyche

Wow, what a genius. El Puerco says we need to unelect Republicans in NH and Maine and replace the recently-Republican opportunist Arlen Spectre in PA and you liken it to the right-wing efforts to purge all the moderates in the Republican party.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 23, 2009 12:18 AM    in reply to Tyche

No it's an attempt to replace the republicans calling themselves democrats with people who are really democrats. If there is anything dems are supposed to stand for, it is sticking up for the little guys...something the blue dogs have conveniently forgotten. Time for us to jog their memories. They should be defeated in the primaries, not wait for the repubs to do it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 10:56 PM   

She's got priorities you know. Protecting wealth for the rich kids is more important than thousands of American lives. Of course she loved padding the pockets of wealthy investors back in 2001 with the Bush tax cuts that were passed through reconciliation.

Think Progress reported in April 2009
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) have a $250 billion proposal to cut estate taxes for the children of multi-millionaires even more than George W. Bush already did, and it’s attracting a disturbing amount of support.

Their $250 billion proposal would raise the estate tax exemption from $7 million to $10 million per-couple and lower the top rate from 45% to 35%.

While opponents of the estate tax claim rolling it back protects small farms and businesses, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out that “only 0.2 percent of the additional cost of the proposal, relative to [the Obama proposal], would go toward tax cuts for small businesses and farms.”

The rest of the cost, approximately $249.5 billion, would go to the inheritors of estates worth over $7 million. Paris Hilton, get excited.

Let’s make one thing clear: the estate tax affects a vanishingly small number of American families. Under President Barack Obama’s budget, over 99.7% of people who pass away wouldn’t pay a dime.

Apparently, however, this isn’t enough for some Senators, who would gut revenues needed for investments in health care, education and energy in order to reward the inheritors of massive estates with $249.5 billion.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 11:13 PM   

Why can't AR, LA, NE just opt out? Fine, you don't want a public option don't get one then. Put it on that states poll and let the voters decide. It is so interesting to me that the 10 unhealthiest states are red states. And it is also interesting that most red states receive more federal funds than they pay in. In essence those not "real" parts of America subsidizes those "small" government states. Maybe we should push for a bill that says each state can only receive as much as they put in. Sorry Alaska no more receiving $1.84 for every $1 paid in. Let's see what those red state budgets look like then. We already know how they feel about "sharing the wealth".

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 12:30 AM   

I was kind of indifferent to today's good news, but the panic from the right-wing trolls has spiced up an otherwise boring and predictable event. F'n hilarious.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 4:10 AM    in reply to Stroszek

When they're foaming, I'm happy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 2:31 PM   

While this so called democrat piece of fuck Blanche Lincoln filibusters healthcare thousand more in her state go without healthcare and even some of them will die. All so Ms Lincoln can try to keep her job. This vermin never stood up to Bush on anything including the war in Iraq and torture but now all of sudden she stands on principle about healthcare. How many healthcare industry dollars did it take to fill her war chest to do that? But in reality like all democrats her vote is based on her being scared to death of republican attack ads come next electron


Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 3:50 PM   

I am not convinced that she will be reelected if she torpedoes health care reform, or strips it of the public option. The R2K poll showed that Arkanasas favors the public option 55-38 (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/14/781862/-Arkansas-is-pro-public-option). So if Blanchy succeeds in blocking reform or just watering it down, her base will not turn up and she'll lose anyway. I think she may have already given up on her job and, like Lieberman, is looking towards a future in lobbying.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 4:09 PM   

no she won't. she is bluffing, just like liberman. reid will sweeten the coifers for her and she will go along with it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 5:52 PM   

The damage has already been done for seniors. Those little medicare deals Obama made with hospitals and insurance companies have made Medicare Advantage costs skyrocket. An example: hospital costs for days 1-6 for granny in 2009 - $150/day; the same costs in 2010 - $255/day. I wager that people will be, at best, very disappointed and more likely pretty angry when they see how much this so-called reform bill will cost them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 8:16 PM    in reply to FDRdog

You're right. It's like paying ransom.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 10:24 PM   

Every one of these stealth Republicans that do this are terminating their Senate careers.

MoveOn and the rest are going to guarantee they lose their elections, and hurt them, for having hurt poor and desperate Americans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 10:56 PM   

Dear Sen. Lincoln,

Thank you for confirming that you are owned by the health insurance industry. Please make sure that this information is on an engraved tag attached to your collar so you may be returned to your owners in the event you become lost.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 11:20 PM   

This is the same Blanche Lincoln who claims she supports a "public plan" on her web page. Blanche is a lying liar who needs a primary challenge starting yesterday.

Lincoln, Lieberman and Landrieu are worse than useless; they are destroying the party and will cause the Democrats to lose seats in 2010, and possibly their majority.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 23, 2009 3:21 PM   

She ought to check the facts before jumping in cohoots with Joe Lieberman. The facts are the public option when structured well will have a tremendous effect on the healthcare of this industry. It's being done well in Ohio. http://cli.gs/z3AtaY/

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