TPMDC

Waiting Game: The Dems Play For Time

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Last Tuesday's election in Massachusetts has left health care legislation in a precarious position. The prospects of passing a comprehensive bill are perhaps lower than at any time in the year-long fight over reform. And yet despite those odds, Democratic leaders in both the House and the Senate are well aware that passing a comprehensive bill remains both a substantive and political imperative. Unfortunately for the Democrats, the options before them are both uncertain and complicated.

The long weekend brought little clarity and no breakthroughs for Democrats scrambling to reach a compromise that would allow the House to pass the Senate's health care bill.

But as the days drag on, one reality becomes more and more certain: Until leaders reach an understanding that will allow the House to move ahead with a guarantee that the Senate bill will be amended, they will be unable to press rank and file members to support the end game they're working toward.

In the meantime, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and senior Democrats must hear their members who are of differing mindsets on how to proceed. According to Rep. John Dingell, "What you're seeing now is Chairman Mao's 'let a thousand flowers bloom'." Hill sources tell TPMDC that leaders will continue to work toward a grand bargain: House and Senate leaders will huddle today at 4 p.m., House Democratic leadership will meet at 5 p.m. and then House leadership will hold a caucus meeting with rank-and-file members at 7 p.m.

The goal of the caucus meeting is to get a sense of where members stand after spending three days sounding out constituents. Nothing is certain; rank-and-file Democrats are all over the map with some members opposing comprehensive reform outright, and others resistant to passing the Senate bill and having lost faith that the Senate will be able to pass a separate bill.

A House leadership aide tells TPMDC that members will be presented with "three ways forward and that's it. And none of them are really that good."

One thing is clear, House leaders aren't waiting for President Obama to signal his preference. The White House says Obama will discuss health care Wednesday in the State of the Union and insist he won't walk away from the "fight," but have yet to articulate a preferred way forward.

"I don't think there are any deadlines right now, other than quickly," a leadership aide told us. "They want to get past this."

"The overwhelming majority of our caucus wants to pass a health care bill," the aide said. "They can't make a decision yet because they are still trying to work through the parliamentary procedures that are at our disposal."

Though some Democrats are despairing that their months-long health care battle could be over before a victory, the Republicans are still fighting it as if it's nearly a done deal.

"Do not be fooled. The Democrats' disastrous plan to take away your health care is not dead in Congress," the National Republican Congressional Committee wrote in a fundraising email.

The NRCC pitch was to raise money to educate voters about reconciliation, saying that is how Democrats will finally get a measure to the president's desk.

Comments (80) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (1)

January 26, 2010 8:32 AM   

no one truly cares what they do anymore. they will not be able to pass any bill that has any benefit to anyone but lobbyists.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:41 AM    in reply to kJCUWzUl

Yep.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 12:20 PM    in reply to kJCUWzUl

This is a lie. They could pass the Senate bill right now, and it most definitely has benefits to people other than lobbyists.

For example, no one would be turned away due to a pre-existing condition anymore.

There would be community rating - i.e. everyone in a broad class is charged the same amount, so that people don't get screwed because they're more likely to get sick.

There would be caps on out of pocket expenses.

There would be subsidies for the poor.

Medicaid would be expanded to cover significantly more people.

And there are a host of other benefits to various people.

Moreover, for the long term, we will have the camel's nose under the tent. It's not absurd to think that the rest of the camel will follow.

Now, whether or not all of that is outweighed by the fact that the bill is not perfect, and doesn't do everything that you or I would like, and that profit will be made? I suppose that's a matter of opinion. But to say that this would benefit no one but lobbyists is an out-and-out lie.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 1:23 PM    in reply to Zell

All and of that would be ensured by . . . what, exactly? Regulations? An agency? No doubt the insurance cos would be very willing to trade nationwide government-mandated purchases of their product for these "limitations."

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:06 PM    in reply to wbgonne

By law, of course. I'm honestly having trouble understanding the level of confusion that leads to such a question.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:14 PM    in reply to Zell

And in any case, this totally ignores the point:

You think that the fact that insurance companies will make a profit outweighs the facts that people will no longer be turned away for pre-existing conditions, won't be declined coverage on their existing policies because "too much" has been spent on them already, et cetera.

That's fair enough, though I think misled (at best). But the point that I am making is this:

When someone says something like "this bill wouldn't benefit anyone but lobbyists", they are lying. There's no two ways around it. They are lying big time; there are many large benefits to many people under the Senate bill.

Again, if you think those benefits are not worth it, fine, that's your opinion. But don't make such an absurdly large lie in an attempt to back your opinion.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 8:40 AM   

What a sorry excuse for a political party. They dither and divide while the opponents fight all out. This is truly going to be their waterloo, because if they cannot pass health reform with such large majorities, no one will care to defend or fight for them or fund them anymore. Perhaps it would be better to have the other party "control" Congress -- then they would take blame for the country's gridlock. Clearly, Obama is positioning himself to be Clinton II (a weaker version, actually), and Congressional Democrats, by stalling, are playing right along. Particularly stupid in this are the so-called progressive Dems like Barney Frank, still refusing to get what can be gotten while it is possible. On all sides, these folks are in safe districts for the most part, and do not have to deliver to stay in office. They know that, and will simply posture ad infinitum.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 8:57 AM    in reply to Theda Skocpol

It's more like Carter II, I suspect.

Clinton eventually figured out how to play the system at least a little. Obama makes the same mistakes over and over to the point where you have to begin to believe they aren't bugs, but features of Obama 1.0.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:02 AM    in reply to howie

Ouch, but I really like that analogy!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:48 AM    in reply to howie

Yep. Definitely Carter.

The problem for the left is that nobody worthwhile will go up against Obama in any primary.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:54 AM    in reply to EastWest

Howard Dean. The largest practical problem is that an insurgent Dem probably can't get the nomination when the black vote will be 99% for Obama.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:56 AM    in reply to wbgonne

Yeah, I hesitate to even go there, but I think you're right.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 10:09 AM    in reply to wbgonne

I like Howard Dean a lot, but I'm afraid that his "image" was tarnished by the press in 2004. I used quotes because what happened to Dean in Iowa and how the public accepted it is embarrassing. People really dismissed him because of the scream? Really?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 12:00 PM    in reply to whitesauce

And that's how we end up with pathological liars like John Edwards and nitwits like Sarah Palin one heartbeat from the presidency.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 12:04 PM    in reply to whitesauce

I'm more upset by idiotic and traitorous "kill the bill" statements to the press.

I wholeheartedly believe that Democrats' poll numbers are falling because of Howard Dean's comments. He told people who really didn't understand the bill that the Senate bill was all bad and split the Democratic party on this issue. We have been infighting ever since, and the health care bill still hasn't passed.

Regardless of whether he believed in the bill or not, as a former party chairman he should have 1) been aware of the political realities of the Senate and 2) used a more politically savvy way to lobby for the house bill or whatever bill he wanted.

He didn't know his own power and shot all Democrats in the foot costing us months of work on health care reform and maybe even killing it. If he did indeed kill it he will lead to another Reagan-like Republican presidency, ironic for a former Dem party-chairman.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 12:06 PM    in reply to Darrius

Yup. Howard Dean is the problem. Got it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:43 PM    in reply to Darrius

I've been a strong supporter of Obama and the Democratic Congress, but I'm not going to be an apologist. Blaming Howard Dean for expressing his opinion (which is his right) is immature.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 12:51 PM    in reply to wbgonne

I hadn't thought about that until I read what you wrote. But not only could could an insurgent candidate not get the nomination from Obama, it would cause another realignment if they succeeded. The Republican would carry districts with 90% African-American populations that would be a nightmare.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 1:24 PM    in reply to Darrius

We are already in a nightmare.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 1:33 PM    in reply to wbgonne

No we aren't, you just think we are. Wait until the next Ronald Reagan permanently abolishes the estate tax and wealth becomes a perfect birthright. Then you will see a nightmare

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 1:39 PM    in reply to Darrius

The way Obama id governing practically guarantees that the Republicans take control again soon. In fact, I can't help but think that Bayh, Lieberman, Landrieu etc are HOPING for that to happen. Then they can go back to being the "reasonable Democrats" who rubber-stamp GOP policies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:04 AM    in reply to Theda Skocpol

I am kind of done with them, they aren't going to get their shit together, it doesn't matter what we think or say or do. I don't know if I can care for much longer, but I can do other things than vote for them, I don't have to vote for them any more.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:06 AM    in reply to Theda Skocpol

What a sorry excuse for a political party. They dither and divide while the opponents fight all out. This is truly going to be their waterloo, because if they cannot pass health reform with such large majorities, no one will care to defend or fight for them or fund them anymore.

You've captured my feelings exactly. If they don't deliver right now, they can certainly forget about me giving a penny or lifting a finger anytime soon.

I really thought they would have learned their lesson after 1994. But maybe they really aren't competent to govern. Which really sucks for our democracy because the ony viable alternative right now has only proven itself competent at destroying government.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 12:09 PM    in reply to Theda Skocpol

@Theda Skocpol:

You have a cool name. I also agree with you on contributions.

This bill is absolutely necessary for the DNC, DSCC, and the DCCC to raise any money at all. I have contributed to all of the above in the past, but if they can't get this bill passed--whatever it takes--they aren't getting any money from me or (worse) from my much richer friends and relatives.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 8:56 AM   

Pass The Damn Bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:17 AM    in reply to Davran

Hell yea. Pass the damn bill ASAP.

Passing the health care bill doesn't win the game it is the start of the game. A long, long game.

We are talking decades here folks. Decades.

First, the Democrats must complete the current health care reform legislation and send it to the President to sign. There are a variety of ways to do this. The key is to quickly pass something quantifiable so that we can start the debate on health care reform based on specific legislation. In this instance perfection is the enemy of good enough.

Second, the President, in his State of the Union speech, should press forward on health insurance reform. The President should state that a key element in health insurance reform is competition: health insurance companies should be allowed to compete in a national market.

Third, the day following the Presidents speech Democrats in both the House and Senate should propose legislation that would strip the anti-trust exemption from the health insurance companies. This bill should be as simple as possible, should be posted on the House and Senate's websites for all citizen to review for 72 hours, and then immediately moved the floor (of the Senate first) for debate and vote.

A vast majority, a silent majority, of Americans want health insurance reform.

Right now.

There is one key point House Democrats must remember.

It is possible to argue whether or not the Senate's health care reform bill is a "winning" policy or political result for House Democrats. I grant you that.

However we all know that subsequent health care and health insurance reform legislation can be constructed to be be a devastating policy and political weapon to the advantage of the Democratic Party in both houses of Congress. For decades.

The Democrats must pass health care reform as quickly as possible. Passage of that legislation is the opportunity to begin the process of on-going health care and health insurance reform.

Think of it this way: once the Democratic party passes the legislation and the President signs it, what do the Republicans do? They are between a rock and a hard place. Do Republicans offer to revise it? Wonderful, we have a debate the Democrats can win. Do Republicans promise to repeal it? They'll be seen as protectors of the health care industry - checkmate. Do the Republicans or blue dog Democrats dare to filibuster a bill to bring true national competition to the health insurance industry? This is a political death sentence for them.

The Republicans need to tread carefully here. And they know it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:20 AM    in reply to W T F

Oh, sure, the House Dems will totally trust Obama and the Senate Conservadems to "fix" the bill after it's passed. Would you?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

tmc

user-pic

January 26, 2010 9:31 AM    in reply to wbgonne

You know what the outside the Village people (you know, voters) think of this mess? Dems can't do sh*t. The house members have to see it that way: either they pass the Senate bill, or they die at the ballot box.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:34 AM    in reply to tmc

Passing an un-fixed Senate Bill is far better than passing nothing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:37 AM    in reply to Davran

I beg to differ. Both short-term and long-term that is bad politics. As for policy? The Senate bill is a monstrosity written by health insurance and Pharma to lock the current unsustainable system in place indefinitely. Not that policy matters, you understand.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:50 AM    in reply to Davran

No. It makes them look weak and indecisive, willing to push anything through just to score political points.

Oh. Yeah. I guess they may as well just go ahead and pass it, then.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 10:57 AM    in reply to Davran

I get a little frustrated by the "pass the bill" argument. I understand the desire to pass something, but not at the expense of our values. The idea of the public option is not progressive and is not a crazy left-wing idea and we still can't get it. The House has every right to get something more from this bill. Why are they being asked to hand over their power?

There is a difference between Democrats and Progressives. Democrats support like-minded candidates. Progressives support issues. These things are not mutually exclusive. Why does the party assume they can hold the votes of a group of people that they don't consistently support? This is not unique; Republicans and social conservatives are having the same fight.

Health care reform is not dying because of House Progressives; it's dying because it's becoming a liability to the party establishment.

One more thing: Days after the 2006 election, when the 50-state strategy seemed to be its most effective, Rahm Emanuel was calling for Howard Dean to resign. These are the sides of the Democratic discussion. Which side are you on? How's the Emanuel strategy working?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 11:35 AM    in reply to whitesauce

What you are doing is called the blame game.

Fuck that.

PAss the damn bill or else. Giving up so you can point fingers and stoke a sense of victimhood and pout about it ..... political suicide.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 12:04 PM    in reply to AnswerFrog

Nope. In order to fix a problem you must first identify it accurately. The problem is the Conservadems and Obama's weak-kneed view of progress. The country is crying for bold leadership and all we get is mealy-mouthed Republican-lite.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:38 PM    in reply to AnswerFrog

"What you are doing is called the blame game.

Fuck that.

PAss the damn bill or else. Giving up so you can point fingers and stoke a sense of victimhood and pout about it ..... political suicide."

I don't understand what you're talking about. I'm not blaming anyone. What I am saying is that centrist Democrats should not abuse Progressives. Progressives are not necessarily Democrats. The only "blame game" I've seen is from those who want House Democrats to give up their authority in order to pass this "bill." In the news today, it's become clear that the ConservaDems are not even willing to negotiate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:39 PM    in reply to whitesauce

Only the last paragraph is mine. Darn HTML!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:16 PM    in reply to whitesauce

whitesauce wrote:

"but not at the expense of our values".

Our values? Let me ask you: if my family is on the verge of starvation and I am flat broke and I steal a loaf of bread to feed them, would you convict me of theft because of "your values"?

The Senate bill eliminates exclusions for pre-existing conditions, removes lifetime caps on coverage, and a few more absolutely essential elements.

It's worth it to pass the bill for those essential elements. Based on my values.

Your values? Well...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:27 PM    in reply to W T F

Before you question anyone's values (which is the classy way of having a conversation), tell me why Congress just couldn't pass a bill with the improvements you've mentioned? The problem isn't that we shouldn't fix those things, it's that we have to mandate the purchase of insurance -- which greatly benefits the insurance companies -- in order to get a few common sense changes put into law. The problem with this debate is that the "Pass the Bill" crowd keep making emotional appeals in the hope that the public will accept a bill that is extremely flawed.

Anyone who feels that making a deal with the devil to get a bill done is necessary certainly has the right to their opinion. Those of us who are worried about the "side effects" of this bill shouldn't be shamed or ridiculed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:06 PM    in reply to whitesauce

I don't see the "Pass the bill" crowd (of which I am a part) making emotional appeals. I see the them making a logical appeal based on all the facts. I see the "kill the bill crowd" making an emotional appeal and overlooking one important fact. That one fact is that the Senate bill is the only bill that has a possibility of passing.

The House bill or anything to the left of the Senate bill can not pass the Senate. The time for arguing over this bill has come and gone. Its time to fix the economy and run for re-election.

A bird in the hand beats two in the bush.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:34 AM    in reply to tmc

So just enact the Senate bill as is? Because it will be politically expedient? Is that what you're saying?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 8:58 AM   

Theda - You nailed it. I cannot believe that the Progressives think killing the bill over the cadillac/chevy tax or the national exchange is a smart strategy. If the Dems blow this, I am staying home next election night.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:16 AM    in reply to El Puerco

That's your takeaway? That progressives are to blame for the clusterfuck that the Obama Administration is becoming? Gee, thanks for the input Rahm.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:54 AM    in reply to wbgonne

These guys just don't get it. They marginalized progressive voices every step of the way. Not only did they absolutely refuse to listen, they openly patronized and derided progressives at every opportunity.

Now that their own stupidity and hubris is biting them in the ass, whose fault is it? Why, the progressives, of course.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 10:49 AM    in reply to EastWest

a big co-sign on this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 12:03 PM    in reply to El Puerco

If you stay home the next election, as feckless as the Democrats may be, how good will the Republican who may get elected be for you? Staying home, or registering a protest vote, only serves to put the opposition in power. Can you afford that? I know I can't. After eight years of Bush and Republican control of our government, I don't want them to have control for a good long time. The problem is how do we push through reforms that we want?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 12:12 PM    in reply to acf_ma

That mentality is precisely what has enabled the Blue Dogs and Conservadems to take the Democratic Party hostage.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:03 AM   

If President Obama told House and Senate leaders that it was an imperative for his administration that the House pass the Senate bill as is and for both houses to pass a reconciliation measure making improvements along the lines already negotiated, we wouldn't have this sorry mess. Not that he could snap his fingers and make it happen, but if he exercised this kind of leadership, instead of it being a matter of herding cats, it would be more a challenge of the Democrats getting their ducks in a row and eventually (my guess within a couple of weeks) it WOULD happen.

This really isn't all that complicated -- there's only one way forward with any chance of succeeding in a short time-frame and it's one that will dramatically improve the status quo and enable the Democrats to deliver.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:36 AM    in reply to Moose49

It appears that the administration does not even want to talk or hear about it, let alone show leadership about this. Sure, of course there must be some negotiation going on behind the scene, and he may be making phone calls as Jarret claimed. But like it or not, perception matters in politics. It's his silence, his apparent obsession with bipartisanship, his unwillingness to insert himself in the negotiation process -- it's that perception that is slowly and surely killing what morale still remains in the base.

The way things are going, I'm not sure how many Democrats feel motivated to give a dime or lift a finger in 2010/2012. And given our realistic alternative which is a bunch of psychos, it is scary to death.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:43 AM    in reply to geofu54

Agreed. Maybe he'll make a strong statement tomorrow night and take action that will make everything I've written moot. One can always hope. But I think the SOTU's his last chance to do this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:52 AM    in reply to Moose49

Sadly, I think the time that "strong statements" are sufficient has come and gone. Actions are what count.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:59 AM    in reply to geofu54

The Administration is in complete denial about any problems with the base, you know.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 12:02 PM    in reply to EastWest

Or they simply don't care.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:04 AM   

Obama should put Ed Rendell in charge of passing HCR.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:05 AM   

Dingell really quoted Chairman Mao? Wow. I can already hear Hannity getting his panties in a bunch over it.

That quote was used by Mao during the brief window when the Chinese intelligentsia were invited to criticize Communist China. Of course, it was a trap: those that actually spoke up were deported or killed when the safe period had passed. (Irony?)

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:08 AM   

Pass the damn bill. No bill, no '10 contributions.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:37 AM    in reply to Jonathan Evans

Got that right. I've passed a variation of that message along to my elected Democrats.

I donated quite generously to the Dems last cycle, with the hope that once elected, they would enact reform. If they can't pass this with the large majorities they have now, I won't throw any more good money after bad.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:40 AM    in reply to Davran

Neither will I. If Democrats stand for nothing but getting elected they can harvest wind.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 10:35 AM    in reply to wbgonne

Well I think we can confidently say the Democrats are expert at passing wind.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:13 AM   

So-called health care reform is dead in the water; and speaking of water, Obama is a jellyfish with no spine. Let's have some real rollicking Republicanism. Palin/Bachmann, 2012. Stay healthy, exercise, eat right, be faithful. Then you won't need the government to prop you up.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 10:04 AM    in reply to Sailormarlowe

"Palin/Buchannan 2012." It seems LittleSailorBoy's answer is the Republican version of "Ponies for everybody". In this case it'd be "Swastikas for everybody." Gassing Jews is so Twentieth Century, so I'm guessing they'd murder six million Muslims instead. Good plan, SailorWeenie.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 10:06 AM    in reply to EastWest

Eratta: I said Palin/Buchannan. LittleSailorWeenie said Palin/Bachman. Same thing, though, pretty much down to the plumbing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 10:15 AM    in reply to Sailormarlowe

You forgot Don't get old.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:36 AM   

Pass the Damn Senate Bill and Move On.
As WTF pointed out (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/dem-leaders-waiting-for-members-to-offer-health-care-ideas.php#comment-3762031) this is simply the beginning of health care/insurance reform, weaknesses problems can be dealt with in the future.

On Nov 2, 2010 there will be an under vote in the Congressional election in my district (NH-D1) if HCR doesn't pass. Starting over is not an option.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:38 AM    in reply to Frex

That pony don't hunt.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:37 AM   

You know, Obama and the House and Senate Dems suck, but you don't have to withhold all of your political donations on that basis. You could give to progressive primary challengers like these:

http://www.actblue.com/page/messagetodemocrats/

Or you could give to groups like Progressive Majority, which only supports actual progressive Democrats, or directly to incumbent actual progressive Democrats like Dennis Kucinich.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 10:11 AM    in reply to Skybolt

I agree...I am only contributing to real progressives in 2010 and beyond!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 10:51 AM    in reply to Skybolt

I agree

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 12:10 PM    in reply to Skybolt

Same here. I am also calling my Rep and Senator (Kerry, not Teabag Brownie) and saying: If I wanted John McCain's policies I would have voted for him. If Democrats won't stand and fight they can sit and whimper about being unemployed politicians.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:39 AM   

Pass.The.Goddamn.Bill.And.Move.On!

They can't afford to drag this out anymore...what are they thinking???

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:51 AM    in reply to geofu54

I think the progressives, liberals and hippies are thinking that the Senate bill is a total POS and they (we) can't trust Rhambama And The Conservadems to fix it later.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 10:03 AM   

The goal of the caucus meeting is to get a sense of where members stand after spending three days sounding out constituents
And who, pray tell, are the "constituents" they are referring to?????

Polls have consistently been pretty darn clear on what the People want, so I guess these "constituents" are........

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 10:40 AM   

Another plus for passing the Senate bill is that it is such awful legislation that there should be little opposition to correcting the many problems it poses. Passing corrrective bills should be easy by comparison. For example, the Cadilac tax can be corrected to a progressive tax using budget reconciliation. The effective dates can also be passed that way. And, as Health Insurance rates continue to go up, the demand for a Medicare Option (to Hell with "Public" option) will be much easier to pass. But, without this first tentative step forward, things can only get more difficult.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 10:47 AM    in reply to hoppycalif2

Another plus for passing the Senate bill is that it is such awful legislation that there should be little opposition to correcting the many problems it poses.

I want some of what you're smoking. It must be REALLY good shit.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 10:43 AM   

Unclear and Uncertain??? I think the way forward is perfectly clear and perfectly certain. Everyone on both sides who pays any attention at all to this issue knows what the only option is. The House just doesn't want accept it. That is the problem.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 1:42 PM    in reply to Darrius

No. the House WON'T accept it. That's the reality. Just like the Conservadems on the public option only with good intentions.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 10:46 AM   

What part of "PASS THE SENATE BILL" are these morons having trouble with

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 10:49 AM    in reply to JohnMcCSF

What morons like you don't get is that it ain't gonna happen unless the Senate plays ball on the needed fixes. You can huff and puff all you want but that's the state of play.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 11:32 AM    in reply to Steve LaBonne

What morons like you don't understand is you are basically enablign BOTH SIDES to do nothing and play the blame game about it being the other side's fault they dont do anything.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 11:00 AM    in reply to JohnMcCSF

It's okay to call your representative and ask that the House pass the bill, but you should also call your senator and insist that the Senate negotiates with the House in good faith.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:19 PM    in reply to whitesauce

You're right, whitesauce.

People need to use their leverage. Call your representative and senators, and don't forget the DNC and the DSCC, which rely on people's contributions to support vulnerable candidates (like Bayh and Lincoln).

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