
That's the question Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trying to answer right now. The two met briefly earlier this afternoon just off the Senate floor.
According to a Senate leadership aide, with the public option and the Medicare buy-in now essentially out of the picture, Reid is "gauging where she is," hoping, perhaps, to turn the Lieberman debacle into an extra vote...or maybe two.
Of course, even with one of her major substantive concerns addressed, Snowe still says she's likely to oppose the bill unless Reid and the Democrats slow walk the bill to a final vote.
"The more they try to, sort of, drive this process in an unrealistic timeframe, the more reluctant I become about whether or not this can be doable in this timeframe that we're talking about," Snowe told reporters last week.
"There's always January," Snowe said. "Frankly, I understand the value of deadlines, but this is getting, I think, unrealistic in terms of where we stand today."
Reid may have his work cut out for him.
wbgonne
December 15, 2009 1:23 PM
No Health Insurance Company Left Behind. An historic bi-partisan achievement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
aikbay
December 15, 2009 2:42 PM in reply to wbgonne
No Senator related lobbyist left behind. And the answer is hell, yeah Olympia Snowe's vote is gettable. Just get rid of those pesky subsidies for poor people. Get rid of that pesky pre-existing condition rule. Increase that great wonderful tax on those so called "cadillac" plans(except for her and her Senate colleagues' plans) and then voila! you will get Snoweflake's vote. Oh, and you might get all this done by next summer. But, hey, Reid enjoyed being Lieberpig's poodle so much, he want's to be Snowejob's Escort.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
December 15, 2009 1:26 PM
I don't she'll want a slow walk such a bill without the PO or medicare buy-in - her "slow it down" was when it seemed like the Dems were ready to steamroll with their 60 votes when the buy-in compromise was looking good. She tried to throw water on it by offering her vote possibility to make it a bi-partisan bill.
Where Snowe's vote becomes important is to not need Nelson and his anti-choice amendment filibuster threat vote. Snowe is pro-choice afterall so if Reid made it seem that they'll need to buy Nelson's vote with anti-choice language otherwise she might vote for the bill to make Nelson's vote not needed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
December 15, 2009 1:35 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
Snowe is pro-choice, until she has to vote for the bill and move it forward, then she will pull a lieberman and come up with a new excuse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
W T F
December 15, 2009 2:23 PM in reply to Michael A
Yep... a Snowe job's better than no job... a girl's just got to work...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
December 15, 2009 1:28 PM
another 123 die today! Thanks Steny!
All members of Congress will give up their public run health care insurance untill all Americans are insured!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Weeferdog
December 15, 2009 1:57 PM
To hell with this sea hag, and with Reid, and yes, Obama. I stood on street corners for this man in 2008. And now this. He's done a lot of good, I truly believe that. But he could have been courageous and great, and he's just another pol.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FredB
December 15, 2009 2:54 PM in reply to Weeferdog
I stood on street corners too in my VERY conservative town and am deeply disappointed. Not the change I thought we'd be getting.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FredB
December 15, 2009 2:58 PM in reply to FredB
Forgot to paste this headline in TPM from July:
Obama Demands: The Bill I Sign Must Include Public Option
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hologram5
December 15, 2009 3:16 PM in reply to FredB
To FredB:
Like that is really going to happen...
I didn't vote for him but since he was elected, I figured I'd do the patiotic thing and support the man but now I know this isn't change that ANY of us can believe in. Maybe chump change. And these clowns in the senate need to be voted out or impeached.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
December 15, 2009 3:13 PM in reply to Weeferdog
Waaaaah, waaaah. Turns out Obama has to deal with the legislative process just like everybody else. Sorry you were so deluded when you "stood on street corners" for him, whatever that means. I'm pretty far left and I knocked a few thousand doors for Obama, but I never thought he'd be able to somehow magically enact some uberprogressive agenda without making sausage in the Senate. It just doesn't work that way.
He's done a great deal in a short time. There's a lot more on the agenda. Sure, there are areas where I'm disappointed. But real progressives have absolutely no excuse to jump ship.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
December 15, 2009 2:08 PM
I hope so. Nelson wants that Stupak language in the bill. Snowe is pro-choice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bobby Thomson
December 15, 2009 2:12 PM
Shorter Snowe: OK, you called my bluff, but give me until January to think of a new excuse not to vote for this.
Much more artfully done than Lieberman's painful effort at the double reverse flip flop. He could take lessons, not that he cares.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dick c
December 15, 2009 2:14 PM
Republican votes should looked at like a canary in a coal mine. If you get one, the people's interest's have been killed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
December 15, 2009 2:16 PM
Lieberman's flip flop seems to be blowing in his face. The MSM is skewering him over the coals over this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 15, 2009 2:27 PM in reply to Maritza
>>Lieberman's flip flop seems to be blowing in his face. The MSM is skewering him over the coals over this.>>
So? He gets two days of bad press for a lifetime of knowing he brought the Democratic party to its knees on healthcare reform. We should all be so lucky to have things blow up in our faces.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
December 15, 2009 2:31 PM in reply to Maritza
Really? That's nice to hear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Beardsley
December 15, 2009 2:21 PM
Who cares about Snowe. This so-called health care reform has been sold out by sleazy Dems, Rahm and White House, mirroring the sleaze of the GOP. Insurance companies, private health providers, and the drug companies win as usual. Anything that comes out of the Senate now will be a sham. Let's move on so they can screw up climate change legislation and all the rest. Obama is no centrist, it would seem. It is change only he can believe in now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
December 15, 2009 2:28 PM
All she's doing is proving how full of shit she is. Satisfy her concerns and then she'll find some other lame excuse not only to vote no on the bill but to support the filibuster. Fuck her, fuck Lieberman, fuck 'em all. Move this through reconciliation and take their leverage -- and their bullshit -- away.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tiowally
December 15, 2009 2:33 PM
It's important to remember what's important here: We have $663.8 billion to spend on the defense budget for fiscal 2010. USA, USA ....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
December 15, 2009 2:35 PM
I think the Dems might have called Liebersums bluff here. I think he planned to vote against any bill and was always going to find an excuse to do so. Now the ball in in his court and he's going to expose himself as the weasel he is to the Dem caucus, some of who seemingly hold him in a positive enough light. It will now be Lieberscum who starts stripping things out and is held accountable by Senators who supported that piece.
Also by doing this Lieberscum will be held accountable by Republicans for leaving bits and pieces in because he had the chance to strip it with his carte blanche powers.
I think they're boxing him in to where he has to pick a side, he'll have to go all in with one or the other. It's easy playing the critic, let's see how Lieberman likes being the one criticized from all sides.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
December 15, 2009 2:35 PM
Does it matter if Snowe is gettable?
Perhaps her consent to a watered-down healthcare bill would add some razor-thin veneer of bipartisan appeal. Still, that won't make the sausage any more palatable for many progressive and conservative voters who have been following this issue.
The idea of government forcing citizens to buy health insurance won't sit well with progressives. Not without a robust public option or Medicare-buy-in. It won't matter how much this coerced purchase is trumpeted by a token Republican and other corporate politicians. Conservatives will rightfully fan that discontent.
I'm for regulating the fat cats without tossing them any more meat. Pass a package of sensible regulations that protects the healthcare of consumers. Do that first, without a mandate to buy insurance. Call it the first phase of a victory-in-progress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
December 15, 2009 3:47 PM in reply to Watt Childress
By the way, I've been concerned about the mandate since the beginning of this process. I bet many people are in the same boat.
Months ago it became obvious that Democrats lacked the collective will to support a robust public option. Yet progressives kept playing with tape and glue, hoping to put together some semblance of the real thing. Each time the caucus crafted a new facsimile, one of the class cut-ups would whip out the scissors and demolish it in a fit of media grandstanding.
Do progressive know how to use scissors? Time to trim out the mandates and pass a bill that simply regulates the healthcare banksters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 15, 2009 2:38 PM
Where is the story about Rahm telling congress to cave to Lieberman????? I looked in archives - can't find it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 15, 2009 3:33 PM in reply to lousgirl84
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/rahm-to-reid-give-lieberman-what-he-wants.php
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rstephen
December 15, 2009 2:38 PM
Slow walk her? Mays well bury the critter if she were walkin a hair slower. I seen putrified corpses wit more git up an go than thisun.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 15, 2009 2:39 PM
"It's times like these when the difference between political activism and self-expression and primal scream therapy become really apparent. Politics isn't easy. Political change isn't easy. It includes tons of reverses and inevitably involves not getting a lot of what you wanted, at least not at first. This doesn't mean everyone needs to agree on policy or priorities. People don't agree on things. That's life. But that's different from cashing out of the process if you don't get just what you want.
For most people it's just talk at moments of maximal frustration. But there's always this 'take my marbles home' tendency, or emotional escape hatch, that many people have. This isn't what I was dreaming of so I'm just going to stop voting or find a third party or generally just devote myself to whining full time. The illusion here is that there's an escape hatch. By pulling up stakes I absolve myself of all the messiness. And I'll tend my purity over here in a protected zone of utter irrelevance."
You should have quit while you were ahead. This is patronizing and otherwise insulting. Sad that we can't all be wise like you. BTW: How is the food at the White House get-togethers?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsdc007
December 15, 2009 3:00 PM
What does she need January for? She and her staffers have read the bill, and know what's in it. Enough is enough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hologram5
December 15, 2009 3:13 PM
With the public option gone, who really cares now? The bill is now so watered down that you couldn't sell it in a bar for a dollar. It is pure water and pork at this point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
December 15, 2009 3:16 PM
Make a deal with Snowe and throw Traitor Joe under the bus. Enough is Enough. Let's see how much he can sell his votes for if the bill passes without him and we take the Homeland Security chair away from him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
topeka
December 15, 2009 3:26 PM
Snowe and Collins for Lieberman and Nelson would not necessarily be a bad trade.
And who are the people writing to TPM who don't understand that, in the current political age -- regardless of who is president -- nothing will come out of the Senate that is unacceptable to the senator needed for the 60th vote. This is especially true when dealing with people like Lieberman and Nelson who care more about themselves (Liberman) or their single issues (in the case of Nelson) than about health care for the people of the United States.
Finally, the Senate vote is not the last word. Something has to get out of the Senate now, and may be improved at least slightly through conference. That appears to be the best we can hope for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KC Chef
December 15, 2009 3:38 PM
C'mon folks, it is what it is. The ball has been moved forward, not forward enough for some but it has moved. Snowe wants to make sure this thing is affordable for those middle class folks who are being mandated to buy, leave her alone.
Snowe also has the competing issue of her caucus telling her not to vote for the bill, so she has to play the slow walking game for optics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acf_ma
December 15, 2009 4:10 PM
Snowe is just a tool (weapon) to slow down the reform bill debate enough for conservatives to be able to take aim and kill it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pstamler
December 15, 2009 5:23 PM
In the end, the only answer may be to abolish the filibuster, at least for legislation. Up-and-down vote. It's a change in the Senate rules, which means it only takes 51 to make it happen.
Peace,
Paul
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe_Dem
December 15, 2009 5:35 PM in reply to pstamler
Change in Senate Rules takes 67 votes.
Fat chance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hychka
December 15, 2009 6:07 PM
Who cares about Snow's vote?! This duck is a dead duck.
Can't agree with you Josh. This bill isn't worth passing and the Dems aren't worth knocking on doors for, making phone calls for, writing checks for, or walking on down to the polls to vote for. They have shot themselves in the base.
We need REAL change.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
December 15, 2009 7:46 PM
She'd rather not vote for it and stay out of the spotlight because they do next to nothing in the Senate other than get paid. Iraq, "War on Terror" are all mirages. They cannot do it for the foreseeable future, the Obama administration is moving forward.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dougom
December 15, 2009 8:30 PM
It's been over 40 years since Medicare passed. How much slower would she like it to go?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?