TPMDC

Obama Rallies Dems To Wrap Up Health Care Bill

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

President Barack Obama

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

President Obama evoked Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the creation of Social Security today in a rare weekend meeting with the Democratic caucus, in a bid to keep his party united behind a historic health care reform bill currently being debated on the Senate floor. But liberal and conservative members, who are struggling to reach an agreement on the public option and other issues, didn't sound as if they were any closer to resolving their differences.

"He reminded us why we're here," said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL). But, he cautioned they're not quite there on the public option and abortion. "Close on both, not quite there," he said.

A number of senators suggested Obama's remarks provided the party and the legislation with much-needed momentum.

"I think it helped, more than significantly," said Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT).

"I can tell you, it would be very hard to have listened to the president's presentation and not have been persuaded of the historic importance of what's being discussed here," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND). "It was a powerful speech."

But the senators on either side of the public option divide saw things differently.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) told reporters Obama's presentation was only persuasive to those who have already decided to vote for the bill. "I think he was...for those who have made a decision to be supportive, I think he was persuasive," Nelson said.

"My position has not changed at all," said Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL). "I've compromised from a single payer, to a strong public option with Medicare plus five, to now a negotiated bill with an opt out. So I've made my moves."

Burris went on: "I sent word, some time ago, back to the president that if the bill comes up and they need sixty votes and there's not a public option in it, it's always been my position that I would not support a bill that does not have a public option in it."

I asked Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), a Senate veteran who's supportive of the bill whether he thought the President had moved anybody off the fence. "I think there's a lot of pressure building on those who are on the other side of...this issue," he told me. "And I think that, hopefully, they will see the ultimate value in this."


Comments (37) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

December 6, 2009 4:42 PM   

More time wasted trying to appease the DINOs. Use reconciliation, or just shut the hell up.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 5:06 PM    in reply to EastWest

Really? Really.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 5:49 PM   

Not in this story, but on your front page summary, was the statement, "The jury is still out on whether President Obama has cinched 60 needed votes for health care legislation."

Sixty votes are NOT needed. 51 votes are needed to pass health care reform by budget reconciliation.

Dems just need some courage to do what the ReThugs did when they were in charge of the Senate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 5:53 PM    in reply to Cal Gal

Sorry, got my links mixed up.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 6:10 PM    in reply to Cal Gal

"Sixty votes are NOT needed. 51 votes are needed to pass health care reform by budget reconciliation."

If it comes to that, we need to really work theprimary scene this season,and push some progressive candidates up the ladder to help nudge the wayward Dems into party unity.

One thing becomes more evident all the time; the Dems who hesitate can't use their old phony excuses anymore, we all know they are protecting their corporate campaign contributors and their small constituent minority of wealthy stock investors to the economic detriment and growing ill-health of the majority of their constituents.

That is one of the changes we have seen because o the last election. Since we all know now their only justification for opposing the public option is for political income from special interests, Democrats who try to claim some moral objection to the public option will be booed off stage.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 5:54 PM   

Roland, please. No one is buying your act.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 7:34 PM    in reply to Viva!America!

Roland Burris would do absolulely anything if he thought it could be carved in his tombstone.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 6:01 PM   

It's time someone in the D leadership starts talking about a plan to change the allocation of committee positions, including stripping senators of their committee roles if they prevent any major policy legislation from reaching the floor or getting to a straight up or down, majority vote. Committee positions aren't entitlements and don't need to be life tenures or based only on seniority. They are controlled completely by caucus rules, which can be changed.
It is their committee positions that grant senators most of their power and yield the greatest contributions. A serious threat focused on their access to those committees may be the only real leverage to get them to play nice.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 7:04 PM    in reply to Mr.E.

Which party is it that is having the "civil war" again?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 9:43 PM    in reply to masanf

We Democrats are quite capable of succeeding with more than one monolithic identity, when we argue it is not civil war, it is intelligent people working out their differences, not ideological enemies fighting for control, like what is happening to the R's even as you speak.

When we point out that the Republicans are splitting, it is a simple observation of an obvious phenomenon, when you point at our typical disputations, and call it civil war, it is exaggeration.

And I am not just trying to "frame" it that way, that is just a plain fact.

Democrats can live with differences, Republicans are about to splinter because they obviously can not accept each other's differences.

Republicans are falling apart, Democrats are just doing what we have always done.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 11:36 PM    in reply to JEP07

Yeah, ok, sure thing. So when the Republican base opposes liberal Dem...I mean Republicans, it is a civil war. When people on this blog daily call for the removal of "DINOS", when people on this blog daily insult Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and Mary Landrieu (half the comments on this site involve insulting "conservaDems"), it is different in what way? When there is a growing call by prominent Democrats, including Howard Dean, to run primaries against already-endangered senators such as Blanche Lincoln, it is different in what way? When liberals such as Roland Burris and Sherrod Brown state they will not compromise on the public option and Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln have stated, implicitly or explicitly, they will filibuster if the bill is not changed, how is that not a civil war? When Arlen Specter is about to lose in a primary, how is that any different? When Waxman and Waters, in the House, are openly insulting Blue Dogs, that is not a civil war because? When Bart Stupak is threatening to tank the bill in the House if his amendment is stripped, how is that not a civil war? When Dems are openly boasting of the fact they will strip amendments passed by their own party in the House, that doesn't rise to the level of "civil war" for what reason?

This bill was supposed to be passed back in August, and now it is looking increasingly likely it won't get through the Senate this year, it is obvious which party is having the real civil war, and it isn't the party that didn't vote for a woman who endorsed a freakin Democrat. So please, spare me your laughably pathetic talking points. This site(and a wealth of other liberal sites) is daily full of insults directed at less-liberal Democrats, so please, spare me your "we are diverse intellects and not monolithic ideologues" crap.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 7, 2009 12:39 AM    in reply to masanf

Why not start with the man in the mirror? Project much do we?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 7, 2009 3:08 AM    in reply to runfastandwin

"daily full of insults directed at less-liberal Democrats, so please, spare me your "we are diverse intellects and not monolithic ideologues" crap."

Do you even realize how contradictory that sentence is?

You are SO confused...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 7, 2009 2:54 AM    in reply to masanf

Try as you might, you can't equate the Democrats' well-practiced diversity with the Republicans' losing both their evangelical base and their secessionist base in a single election cycle, leaving only the Bush era book-cookers and the stubborn, deluded Reaganites as reliable votes for their party.

Masanf, your party is falling apart, ours is just doing what it has always done. Like any "family", when we get together for the holidays (electin time) we will all be sitting at the same table, even if some of us eat turkey and others eat duck.

The few left seated at your party are all eating crow.

Get as mad as you want, but you just can't turn the Democratic Party's tradition of internal debate about optional ideas into the kind of debilitating, divisive and destructive "civil war" in your own party.

But I am sure you will keep trying.

Unfortunately, you are only fooling yourself.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 7, 2009 3:02 AM    in reply to JEP07

PS Your party's civil war really started just after the 2004 election and increased in 2006 wiht our taking the majority and matured in 2008 with a crushing electoral defeat for one of the true moderates in your party.

list your old crop of leadership, and you can't miss the defections.

Where's Frist and Allen and Lott and Craig and Foley and Hastert and Sanford and Santorum and Jeb and where the heck is Twinkletoes Tom Delay? You've had so many desertions from your top ranks in the last two cyles, you can't possibly deny that your leadership is not equal to your delusions.

Give it up, you are only embarrassing yourself and other Republicans, and your "divide and conquer" tack is hilariously transparent and equally impotent in this crowd.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 11:39 PM    in reply to Mr.E.

When you talk about "D leadership" you sure aren't talking about Obama. He's very good at creating the illusion of leadership, but his participation in health care reform legislation is always late and insufficient.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 7, 2009 8:38 AM    in reply to Mr.E.

Absolutely! It's one thing for Blue Dog Democrats to speak up for a more conservative approach to legislation, but this "Put this in or Take this out or I won't support cliture," is ridiculous.

They're doing it because they know they can get away with it, since the Republicans aren't going to vote for any major Democratic initiatives.

We shouldn't go overboard, but particularly in the House, we're better off losing a couple of seats to the Repubs than having a Blue Dog DINOs hold up everything.

First to primary is Stupak (member of the Family), first Senator to primary is Blanche Lincoln.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 7, 2009 10:08 AM    in reply to Hyla Brook

Okay, you should volunteer your services to finding an electable Democrat that can primary Lincoln in Arkansas. I think whatever replacement you find will also disappoint and regress to DINO status when staring down re-election defeat in the last year of term.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 6:03 PM   

With Reid's numbers sinking in the polls, he may have no other choice but to take a more forceful role in demanding cooperation from the recalcitrants.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 6:34 PM    in reply to Mr.E.

"With Reid's numbers sinking in the polls, he may have no other choice but to take a more forceful role in demanding cooperation from the recalcitrants."

Just the opposite. He'll do what Dems always do. He'll do his best to become even more Republican. He'll try to out-Blanche Blanche.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 6:36 PM   

Ok so McConnel say's there's nothing that repub's can support, DUH!
Then some other say's Dems have too many special interests to please....PLEASE! If it's about re election only, then let's see who's actually there to do the peoples work or to perpetuate their provenance. If Dem's fail they got themselves to blame.
Thank you Mr. President for at least trying...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 6:56 PM   

Obama has me so "Fired Up", I'm ready to "Quit".

Bush would of had this HCR passed already if he wanted it by using Reconciliation and telling the likes of GI Joe and the Blue Dogs to go shove it!!!

Instead, Obama is caving into everything the Blue Dogs and GI JOE want which is no healthcare reform.

What's the next act for the Obama Administration? Giving massive tax cuts to the wealthy and giving the rest of us bread crumbs?

I hope if Josh is invited to the WH he conveys this message to Pres Obama.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 7:06 PM    in reply to lapdogs

Yeah, because it is the job of the press corps to convey "messages" to the White House.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 7:28 PM    in reply to lapdogs

Spent a few minutes trying to figure out what to say to your ridiculous post - I got nothing. It's just too ridiculous for words.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 8:14 PM    in reply to Viva!America!

Yeah, well, in its basic substance lapdog's message is spot on. Bush and the repugs WOULD have gotten this done by now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 8:27 PM    in reply to EastWest

To get a bunch of rich, old, mean white guys to stick together on issues is mere child's play. It's not so easy when your party truly represents the great diversity of the population.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 8:45 PM    in reply to Big River Bandido

Wait - the great diversity of the population or the relative diversity of moneyed interests?

Do you mean that we represent Goldman Sachs AND Blue Cross Blue Shield and that creates some kind of difficulty?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 9:54 PM    in reply to Big River Bandido

"To get a bunch of rich, old, mean white guys to stick together on issues is mere child's play."

Until their brainwashed victims realize they are getting used, which is why the "hard right", the the evangelicals and the secessionists gunheads, has abandoned the more centrist fiscal libertarian conservatives.

Those fiscal conservatives are also the Goldman Sachs players, who do you suppose will be their worst adversaries in the months to come? I would guess the old secessionist NRA gunheads who hate "East Coast Bankers" (I left out a common racial slur that often fits there between "Coast" and "Bankers" but you all know what I mean) aren't about to take this bank bailout lightly. And the evangelicals will find someone from their own fold now, instead of trusting the McCains and the Romneys,

No, the demise of the Republicans will not come at the hands of the Democrats, it will all come from within.

It may already be too late for them to find any middle ground, unless, of course, they can run Schwartzenegger, and their rabid birthers just wouldn't stand for it.

They have nowhere to go but crazy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 7, 2009 9:40 AM    in reply to Big River Bandido

Bingo!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 11:25 PM    in reply to EastWest

Just like Bush and the Republicans passed Social Security Reform, right? Oh wait...

Reconciliation is a very restrictive process that can only be used for certain measures. Most of the regulatory reform that is central to the bill would likely not make it through reconciliation. Putting this bill through reconciliation would be like pushing Jell-O through a cheese grater.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 7, 2009 3:15 AM    in reply to Viva!America!

"Bush would of had this HCR passed already if he wanted it"

If Bush had wanted it, he would never have been elected...

What you don't say s that as long as Bush wanted neocon-approved legislation, it would have gotten done.

But he never had to try to support anything remotely aking to this, everything he passed or promoted was hard-core corporate/party line.

It's like saying "well, at least the trains ran on time in Nazi Europe."

Especially the ones heading for Auschwitz.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 11:29 PM    in reply to lapdogs

If Bush could have passed this kind of structural reform through reconciliation, he would not only have gutted Social Security (which, as I apparently need to remind you, he failed to do), he would have gutted Medicare and created all kinds of harsh incentives to force people onto the individual insurance market. He didn't because reconciliation is not a magic wand that can be used to pass any kind of legislation you want. It's useful for fiddling around with the tax code but not much else.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 8:46 PM   

Meanwhile another win for diplomacy....

"If it wasn't for the American intervention in the first degree ... the law today would not have passed," said Salih Mutlak, a Sunni Arab lawmaker. "This is the first time that the Americans use wisdom and logic and pressure the Kurds."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/80151.html

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 8:55 PM   

God incarnate could convene such a gathering and the best he could get is "it was a very powerful speech"...BUT....

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 6, 2009 9:58 PM    in reply to Jackster

and no doubt, the birthers would want to see His birth certificate...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 7, 2009 8:57 AM   

My guess is that the insurance companies are putting enormous pressure on obama and the democrat party to get this cash cow for them enacted.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

December 7, 2009 10:23 AM   

As if, T Groan, Obama didn't have enough pressure already on him to get HCR done. Pay no mind to the fact that he has made passing HCR the defining legislative issue of his presidency and party from which its success or failure will be monumental to his future political fortunes as well as his party's.

You are truly an idiot. Go back to your permanent underclass student status at Bob Jones University and try and figure out what you want to do with your life before trying to comment on issues far beyond what you are capable of understanding.

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