Clyburn: We Can't Pass The Senate Bill As Is

cube3u

January 21, 2010 12:38 PM

OMG, they're hoping the reaction by their base will blow over.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

The Decider

January 21, 2010 12:39 PM in reply to cube3u

Their base? Don't you know that corporations run the country now? Take a look at today's Supreme Court ruling. You actually think that you are their base?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

kgb999

January 21, 2010 1:00 PM in reply to The Decider

You are getting "patron" confused with "base". People still must vote them in. Otherwise, no cookie.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

The Decider

January 21, 2010 3:00 PM in reply to kgb999

Rove told me that modern multiple regression techniques can almost guarantee a winning campaign if you have enough money. Pretty candidates get in cheap, ugly ones cost more, so to speak. Votes can be bought and voters can be spun. There's a sucker born every minute. So, appealing to the masses is nice, but only because it doesn't cost as much to get elected. With endless funds, who cares?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

OhioGuy

January 21, 2010 12:38 PM

"Even elementary, you can get to 60 quicker than you get to 218,"

Sorry Jim but that's a fail.

60 votes in the Senate is 100% of the Democrats plus 100% of the Independents.

218 votes in the House is only 85% of the 256 Democrats. You can lose 38 votes and still pass the bill.

Which sounds easier now?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Boidster

January 21, 2010 1:03 PM in reply to OhioGuy

Came here to say this.

I bet Clyburn falls for the old "Hey I'll give you five dollar bills for your one twenty-dollar bill. It's a good deal because everybody knows five is more than one!"

Moron.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

kgb999

January 21, 2010 1:23 PM in reply to OhioGuy

Both have their challenges. It certainly takes more logistics to get the House votes cornered. From a whip perspective, I'm going with Clyburn - one can canvass the Senate 4 times over with the same work it takes to canvass the house once. But you are focusing on a false metric. Once the whip is done, either the votes are there or the votes are not. I think we're seeing a bit of leadership anger with the WH as well ... if Obama wants to cut deals with the caucus bypassing leadership, he damn well better be able to handle whipping the results.

The Senate is playing chicken with the house progressives and Obama knowingly set up the battle. Rham has stated he thinks progressives are weak and will ultimately just fall in line once someone plays hardball with them. If progressives don't do as everyone here is demanding and sell out their voters ... the Senate has every bit as much a "House Problem" as the house does a "Senate Problem".

Honestly, with real progressives and independents, the sell for killing the Senate bill seems safer politically than trying to sell what is, by all accounts, a corporate giveaway in a year of anger about corporate giveaways. Progressives have zero ownership here. IMO, the democrats couldn't have crafted a bill more likely to destroy their electoral prospects if they had set out with intent (oh, that's right, half of Obama's bipartisan coalition of the willing has a stated goal of destroying democratic electoral prospects ... go figure).

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

January 21, 2010 1:35 PM in reply to kgb999

"what is, by all accounts, a corporate giveaway"

No, it's not that by all accounts. Only in the accounts of the narrative the progressives have gotten themselves locked into.

I know this is going to be a shock, but as long as they get insured and they don't get screwed when they try to use the benefits, most people find the concept of insurers making a profit to be a minor annoyance at most.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

January 21, 2010 1:45 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

it's not the profit, it is the tax dollars people will care about. The deficit. As premiums increase, as they will, more tax money will be needed.

not to mention this: but as long as they get insured and they don't get screwed when they try to use the benefits - is more likely than not.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

kgb999

January 21, 2010 2:32 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

*If* that were a possible outcome from the Senate bill, you would have a point. Sadly, the senate bill doesn't accomplish this. The senate bill gives 30M people welfare and taxes the working middle class to do so - while forcing them to buy top-dollar, low-benefit individual plans with zero negotiating power. I simply can't make this thing pencil without accepting some assertions that are absurd on their face. Either Reganomics works or it doesn't. My money is on "doesn't".

Good luck, Steve. People who support the public option by 87% just voted for a republican in MA - in large part because the Senate bill sucks. IMO, Obama democrats have become idiots who could fuck up getting laid in a whore house. I still love y'all, but you are screwing up our country just like the Bush republicans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

January 21, 2010 1:41 PM in reply to kgb999

Honestly, with real progressives and independents, the sell for killing the Senate bill seems safer politically than trying to sell what is, by all accounts, a corporate giveaway in a year of anger about corporate giveaways. Progressives have zero ownership here. IMO, the democrats couldn't have crafted a bill more likely to destroy their electoral prospects if they had set out with intent (oh, that's right, half of Obama's bipartisan coalition of the willing has a stated goal of destroying democratic electoral prospects ... go figure).

solid. if anyone is to blame, it is leadership.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Darrius

January 21, 2010 2:26 PM in reply to kgb999

Which is why this action is downright betryayal from progressives. Everybody in the Democratic party has put themselves on the line and already taken the hit to their numbers....Every Democrat but progressives. All the moderates and Senators in red states have voted for health care reform and will take whatever damage from doing so and now the progressives don't are unwilling to risk their own ass.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

kgb999

January 21, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to Darrius

The progressives opened the compromise by taking Single Payer off the table; very popular with their constituencies - they took a hit to get the ball rolling. Everyone else has gotten something in return for their votes - taken exclusively from progressives. You all act like progressives are your bitch or something.

Good luck. IMO, you are mad at the wrong people.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Darrius

January 21, 2010 3:01 PM in reply to kgb999

No they didn't, Obama did that. I didn't understand why he did it at the time. Now, I understand it clearly. Having a true single-payer plan mentioned in the negotiation would have only validated the Republican talking point against certain senators and congressmen only to have the progressives walk away from the deal and leave them all exposed.

And yes this is betrayal by progressive members. The moderate and conservative dems have already stuck their necks out and the progressives are going to make that for nothing. It is made worse by the fact that these same progressives haven't taken any political risk and are the ones most able to hide behind the President.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

January 21, 2010 1:25 PM in reply to OhioGuy

Nope. Unless they act before Brown is sworn in, which they won't do, it's now 100% of the Democrats + 100% of the Independents + 2.4% of the Republicans, which = 0% fucking chance of passing a revised bill in the Senate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

kgb999

January 21, 2010 2:58 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

No. Brown won't vote for it. There is 0% chance of passing the bill as it sits - revised or not. Period.

In that reality, it's just as well the house make a show of it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

drv

January 21, 2010 5:35 PM in reply to OhioGuy

Yeah, that remark jumped out to me, too.

Where was Clyburn when the House passed their Bill with relative ease but the Senate dithered and dickered for months and only after cutting deals with some Senators and watering down the thing did they get to 60 votes?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

CT Voter

January 21, 2010 12:41 PM

Nice point. And is this the start of finger-pointing between the House and Senate?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

CT Voter

January 21, 2010 12:44 PM in reply to CT Voter

Whoops. That should have been a reply to Ohioguy...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Viva!America!

January 21, 2010 12:43 PM

Right. You get that 218 and then the Senate will say they can't get 60 and then what?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

FreeRider

January 21, 2010 12:45 PM

If Kucinich and Massa vote against HCR again, I will personally work to defeat those fuckers!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Maritza

January 21, 2010 12:47 PM

I don't see why people are freaking out. Clyburn is basically saying what Laby is saying which is pass a bill via reconciliation that makes the changes the House wants and then the House will pass bot the reconciliation bill and the Senate bill simultaneuously to pass a health care reform bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

cube3u

January 21, 2010 12:54 PM in reply to Maritza

Really, no clue on freaking out?

These folks have spent seven damned months to date and now they've managed to put themselves in a box built by the GOP.....and we're cautioned to "wait, we have the answers" for about the one-hundredth time on this one single issue.

And this follows the cowardly nonsense from Frank (BTW, HIS district's votes went to, yes, BROWN) and Webb. And I'll add the weak comment from Obama.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

fbacon2

January 21, 2010 1:17 PM in reply to Maritza

People should definitely be upset and worried, but I agree that we are overreacting in our information vacuum. What I see repeated in every public comment is that options are on the table, but what bothers me is a lack of urgency when the clock is ticking. The odds are against us, but we can do it if we don't fumble the ball.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

lb0313

January 21, 2010 12:51 PM

I want a whip report of all the Nays. And then I want us all to beat the ever loving shit out of each and every one of them

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

pstamler

January 21, 2010 12:57 PM

My message to Pelosi: Bring the Senate bill to the floor for a vote -- a roll-call vote. Make each and every one of the damned fools who votes nay do it, verbally, in front of God, CSpan and their constituents. Oh, and before the vote, remind them that if they vote nay, they'll get zero $ from the party for their fall campaign.

I bet it'd pass.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

OhioGuy

January 21, 2010 1:20 PM in reply to pstamler

Yes. If the votes aren't there, I want to know which votes aren't there.

The leadership doesn't seem to understand that this is the make-or-break issue, not another "let's keep our powder dry and shield our members for next time" vote.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Elizabeth2

January 21, 2010 2:37 PM in reply to pstamler

They absolutely should do that. At this point, there is nothing **negative** that's going to happen to those who tell Pelosi "you can't get my vote" and then simply stay away from the cameras. I want to know who they are -- more, I want their constituents to know who they are.

They have no idea how much harm they are doing -- to the respect and support of the people who voted for them, the respect of the independents who simply want effetive government, and to the intransigence of the people who opposed them. IF they had had the internal fortitude to snap around and pass the Senate bill the day after Brown was elected, they might have had a less-than-optimal bill ..... but THEY, not the Republicans, would have taken control and changed the landscape. That's what leaders do.

I do hope Obama has learned that he cannot depend on Congress and that they are sufficiently embarrassed to let him take the lead, even if it steps on their over-inflated egos.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

septictank

January 21, 2010 1:00 PM

If you guys would just read the comments over on Kos you'd know that reconciliation is easy as pie. Heck, they could probably pass single payer through reconciliation if we all post enough comments to the blogosphere.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Zell

January 21, 2010 1:05 PM

"Everybody keeps focusing on the Senate getting to 60 [votes], and they don't seem to remember that we have to get to 218 in the house. Even elementary, you can get to 60 quicker than you get to 218," he said. "We all know that."

I can't believe he would say this insipid, patronizing, sophistic statement.

It's easier to get 218 votes when you have 256 Democrats than it is to get 60 votes when you have 59 Democrats.

Fuck Jim Clyburn. He may have been a great leader in the civil rights movement, but that was a long time ago, and now, apparently, he's a tired old coward who lies in order to cover his apathy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

kgb999

January 21, 2010 1:49 PM in reply to Zell

I don't see how it's the House's fault the Senate sent them a bill they have said all along they would have trouble passing. What, did you think they were bullshitting?

In a party where cooperation gets you shat upon and obstruction earns a favored seat at the table, WTF did you expect? Holding the bill hostage is apparently the only way to impact it. You think progressives are stupid? Welcome to the party Rahm built.

After losing the seat of Ted Kennedy, it's pretty tough to argue that ANY seat is a safe seat. Blue-state caucus members using the same tactics as Nelson should get the same level of support from the party that Nelson enjoyed. After all, they have a base too.

You can jump up and down, scream, hollar, and hold your breath until you turn blue(dog) ... but MA proves it. You can't force the voters to elect your people by asserting they owe you. Seriously. Fuck the centrists. I'd take 10 Clyburns over one Bayh.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Zell

January 21, 2010 2:15 PM in reply to kgb999

I don't see how it's the House's fault the Senate sent them a bill they have said all along they would have trouble passing.

That's not their fault, and I never said or implied that it was.

What is their fault is that they are going to kill the only chance that we have. Playing "I wish we were sent a better bill" does not change the fact that they were not sent a better bill, nor does it change the fact that they are not going to be sent a better bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

pittprof

January 21, 2010 1:27 PM

Democrats should either push through health care reform asap or shelve it for good --just decide what you are going to do and move on. Every day that health care reform is in the news without any reform being enacted is a bad day for the Democrats. Constantly reminding voters of the best example of your inability to govern is not a good campaign strategy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Walter Mitty

January 21, 2010 1:29 PM

Kiss your majority good by and say hello to Speaker Boehner.

Dem politicians are about as useless as tits on a bull.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Steve LaBonne

January 21, 2010 1:35 PM in reply to Walter Mitty

They did that the day they decided to give daily "fuck you"s to all the young and other new voters who turned out for Obama (and conspicuously DIDN'T turn out for Coakley). And people like you were leading that charge. Suck on it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Steve LaBonne

January 21, 2010 1:29 PM

The meltdown around here is hilarious. Those who have bought into Village-think provide themselves on "realism", but they can't handle it when reality doesn't turn out the way they imagined it. Then they can only console themselves for the disillusionment with a spot of hippie punching. (Which also involves some nice Republican-style projection- it's actually Villagers who go apeshit when they don't get handed everything they want, while progressives have compromised, compromised and compromised some more.) It is to laugh, and is a lovely microcosm of the uselessness of the Democratic Party.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Zell

January 21, 2010 1:35 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

Oh, fuck you. I am a progressive, you patronizing jackass. I blame the Republicans for this; I blame the blue dogs for this; I blame Lieberman for this; they all deserve blame.

That does not change the fact that the House of Representatives can give us health care reform -- imperfect though it may be -- right now, and that they're not going to do so, because of the progressive wing of the House caucus.

It also does not change the fact that the Senate bill is the best chance that we have, and if it dies, it likely dies for a decade.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

FreeRider

January 21, 2010 1:59 PM in reply to Zell

Co-sign!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation

January 21, 2010 4:51 PM in reply to Zell

Agreed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

clonecone

January 21, 2010 1:38 PM

Well, Mr. Whip, give us the names of every single so-called Democrat who is joining with Bachmann and King to kill reform. You've failed so let us do your job for you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

kgb999

January 21, 2010 2:14 PM in reply to clonecone

If you were a progressive activist, you'd already have this list. If you were a GOP activist you'd already have this list.

As with Coakley ... you DLC worshipers are sitting with dicks in hand. AWESOME. Don't ask Clyburn for something you have been too lazy to seek out yourself.

And here's a novel thought. If you call yourself a liberal, why not try attacking some conservatives for once?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

clonecone

January 21, 2010 2:38 PM in reply to kgb999

This list has changed since yesterday. Clyburn is the fucking whip, so it's his job to whip the votes.

I've been on the phone with members of congress all goddamn day. What in the fuck have you done other than assume everyone is DLC?

Fuck you and the rest of the firebaggers. Every person denied insurance for a pre-existing condition can now thank you. Same for those who lose their insurance due to a new illness. Same for those who can't afford health insurance. 30 million lives are now on your head.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Steve LaBonne

January 21, 2010 1:41 PM

You're a fake "progressive" and a moron. Fuck you right back, and the horse('s ass) you rode in on.

It also does not change the fact that the Senate bill is the best chance that we have

to fellate the health insurance industry while pissing off key Democratic constituencies. Go read the fucking Massachusetts polls.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Zell

January 21, 2010 1:44 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

You don't know anything about me, jackass.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

FreeRider

January 21, 2010 2:00 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

Fuck off and join the teabaggers, asswipe.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Steve LaBonne

January 21, 2010 2:27 PM in reply to FreeRider

People like you simply refuse to draw the obvious conclusions from the clear and electorally dangerous unpopularity of the Senate bill. (Which makes YOU more like the teabaggers- there's that projection problem again.) That's simply not the problem of those of us who have more sense. Fume all you want, political reality will pass on without you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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