
In the hours and minutes before Republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, House Democratic leadership sounded resilient, even optimistic notes about the possibility of passing health care reform anyhow. But that puts them at odds with their rank and file members, particularly progressives, who, based on press reports and interviews conducted as returns were coming in, but before the race was called, now have a hard time seeing an endgame.
A number of progressives say that they still can not vote to pass the Senate bill in the House, even though that would wrap up the reform project once and for all. But with at least one Democratic member of the Senate pre-emptively saying there should be no more Senate votes on health care before Brown is seated, that increasingly appears to be their only avenue. The question is, is that road blocked?
"If it comes down to that Senate bill or nothing, I think we're going to end up with nothing, because I don't hear a lot of support on our side for that bill," said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA). "I've lost my faith in anything happening quickly that requires Senate action.
"If she loses, it's over," Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) said this evening in New York.
Two high-profile progressives--Reps. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)--said the only way they could sign on to the Senate bill is if it was accompanied immediately, or even preceded by, a separate bill, making a number of major preemptive changes to what they regard as an inferior package.
"It would have to be so quick that they happen at the same time," Weiner said. "We're in full whistling past the graveyard mode in there.... They're talking as if, like, what our deal is, what our negotiations are with the White House. Yeah, I mean if the last line is 'pigs fly out ass' or something like that.... We've gotta recognize we have an entirely different scenario tomorrow."
"You should do the other stuff first and then pass the Senate bill," Nadler told me. "I don't see how I could vote for the Senate bill," otherwise.
That puts them at great odds with Democratic leadership who say they will still enact reform.
"I don't think you can find a member in here, prior to or after, who supports the Senate bill," said Rep. John Larson, the fourth ranking Democrat in the House, after a meeting of the caucus tonight. But, he asked rhetorically, "did any of them tell you that they were opposed to health care and health care reform?"
"The reports of its death, as Mark Twain would say, have been exaggerated," Larson added. "We're going to move forward, and we're going to pass health care reform."
This afternoon, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said much the same. "Whatever happens in Massachusetts, we have to do that," she said. "And whatever happens in Massachusetts we will have quality affordable health care for all Americans, and it will be soon."
Some conservative Democrats are echoing their progressive counterparts.
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD), co-chair of the Blue Dog Caucus, said that the "chances would diminish significantly for achieving health care reform this year."
But others seemed significantly less rattled.
"I think Massachusetts is a unique case because they already have their own health care system," Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA) told reporters. "You could...make the case, I think persuasively, that they do like their health care plan so therefore it wasn't an issue and they looked at other things when they made their decision."
"The climate's about the same as it was when we took the vote on the House bill," said Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL).
But all of that probably comes as little solace for members of leadership who, if they don't want reform to flame out, will have to come up with a fix. Quick.
Viva!America!
January 19, 2010 10:13 PM
Determined. Show those in Mass. that voted for Scott that they pretty much wasted their time and vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 19, 2010 11:00 PM in reply to Viva!America!
You hear that?????
That is the sound of Ronald Reagan's ghost waiting to be re-elected in 2012.
If the house progressives abandon the health care bill then that is exactly what we will get.
The next President will be a Republican who will bring 25 Senators and 50 house members with him.
Progressives are apparently willing to break the entire Democratic party from the left and make the party unable to win a single state.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 19, 2010 11:13 PM in reply to Darrius
Oh, bullshit. It is you pass-anyhting-and-pretend-it's-refrom types who have enabled the Dems' self-emasculation. If you stand for somethinhg say so and do your best to persuade voters. If you fail you try again. ANd again. And again. Until you win or die trying. That is how real reform gets done. not by bobbing and weaving and hoping nobody notices what you're trying to do. The Repubs think government is the problem. Dems believe government is how we come together to solve our common problems. Say it. Explain. Again and again. Mr. President.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 19, 2010 11:22 PM in reply to wbgonne
hey, in case you missed my earlier note to you, I wanted to say thank you to you and your wife for holding your noses and voting for Coakley.
Good people. I dislike Coakley, too, but I would have voted for her. But Capuano would have won.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 20, 2010 12:04 AM in reply to again
Thanks. I just hope this humiliating loss wakes Obama up. If you want people to fight for you, you must stand for something.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 19, 2010 11:33 PM in reply to wbgonne
Same thing Teddy Kennedy thought when he primaried Jimmy Carter FROM THE LEFT. He left the party in a broken shamble. Ronald Reagan carried 49 states in the general election and promptly moved the country to the hard right in transformational fashion.
That is what progressives are working on right now. It has already begun. We just lost a Senate seat in one of the most blue states ever. Democrats are demoralized and exhausted; they are also fighting with one another. Yeah, Ronald Regan #2 is right around the corner. If the progressives kill the health care bill we will meet him soon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 20, 2010 12:07 AM in reply to Darrius
You really don't get it. Dems just lost Teddy Kennedy's seat, The party IS ALREADY BROKEN. The question is how to fix it -- by cowering in the shadows of the Republicans or stepping up and saying: government is NOT the problem; government is how civilized people come together to solve their problems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 20, 2010 12:29 AM in reply to wbgonne
I think I get just fine. The party is already broken because so far Democrats haven't taken any action. Moreover people like me and you, who always vote Democratic, have spent the last 2 to 3 months arguing over health care, AND ARE STILL DISAGREEING ABOUT WHAT TO DO.
In order to fix the problem requires more that just talk. The country is in pain and they want something done about the economy, health is only on the table because Obama had the privilege of doing it in his first year.
People like me and you should both be attacking Republicans. In order do that we have to change the prevailing topic of discussion. The only way that will happen is if the house passes the Senate health care bill and prove to the country that Democrats are capable of action.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 20, 2010 12:48 AM in reply to Darrius
Look, I hear you and I do think we're in basic agreement. My beef is that you can;t move the country from a baseline Reagan conservatism without a frontal assault on the Republican's government-is-the-problem ideology. It simply can't be done anyway other than up front. Yes, there will be tough sledding but I firmly believe that Americans are open to another way. In all events, I just don't see any alternative. Obama has tried the post-partisan, DLC route and it lost a senate seat in MA. If that's not a wake up call then Dems are comatose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 20, 2010 1:32 AM in reply to wbgonne
Look, I hear you and I do think we're in basic agreement. My beef is that you can;t move the country from a baseline Reagan conservatism without a frontal assault on the Republican's government-is-the-problem ideology. It simply can't be done anyway other than up front. Yes, there will be tough sledding but I firmly believe that Americans are open to another way. In all events, I just don't see any alternative. Obama has tried the post-partisan, DLC route and it lost a senate seat in MA. If that's not a wake up call then Dems are comatose.
If we want to move the country from baseline conservatism we have to SHOW THEM that government can solve their problems. Yes, that may be difficult but you must hang on to power in order to do that.
Health care reform is not expendable. The Dems have invested too much in it to scuttle it now. Dems have to make sure that there is a tomorrow. A series of small victories can add up to a substantially different country over the long term.
I still want to see the employer-free choice act (remember that) pass. But if HCR fails we won't get anything on any issue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 20, 2010 1:59 AM in reply to Darrius
No. It is the notion that power matters more than principle that has wrecked the Democratic Party. You persuade people with your beliefs and your arguments; when you try to sneak things though and hope nobody notices you lose Ted Kennedy's senate seat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kfreed
January 20, 2010 10:55 AM in reply to Darrius
The only problem is that Americans don't want the Senate's version of the health care bill. Without price controls and the lack of an anti-trust clause, in addition to a horrifying mandate, nobody considers the Senate's bill a reform of the health insurance industry. So insurnace companies would no longer be able to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions, but they can pretty much continue denying care due to an individual's inability to pay and they can charge whatever they want. A public option without a mandate would have offered choice rather than making demands. People were behind that. There's a huge difference between what people need/want and what is in the Senate version of the bill. Its a no-sell. Break it up and begin again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 20, 2010 12:20 PM in reply to kfreed
No, the problem is that progressives don't want the Senate bill. The public in general doesn't even want to be discussing health care and they don't understand what is in either health care bill. It is the progressives who don't want the Senate bill from some sense of ideological purity. But ideological purists always push a party into the minority.
The general American public wants the government to be working on the economy. The fact that we are even discussing, let alone doing, health care reform is a concession to the progressive wing of the Democratic party. If any other faction, in either party, had their way we would not be doing it at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Heretic
January 21, 2010 4:53 AM in reply to Darrius
Yeah. I thought that would be the republicans' undoing—and then an ideological purist conservative won a senate seat in the bluest state in the country. Kinda makes one take pause.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
markg8
January 20, 2010 9:01 AM in reply to wbgonne
In mid September 1994 polls showed Mitt Romney tied with Ted Kennedy in the race for his senate seat. If Kennedy hadn't beaten him in the debate and outspent him by $3 million dollars he would have had half the career he did. Teddy was a lion of the senate and grew into a liberal icon but he wasn't always the invulnerable demigod some make him out to be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
January 20, 2010 12:56 AM in reply to Darrius
Reagan did not win 49 states in 1980, and a primary challenge from his left was the least of Carter's problems that year (a terrible economy and the ongoing Iran hostage crisis are why he lost). If you're going to try to use history in service of your arguments, at least try to be semi-accurate about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 20, 2010 1:17 AM in reply to Geoff Johnson
I'm sorry. He only won 43 states in 1980. He won 48 states in 1984.
Obama's got a terrible economy to fight against. Plus he has got terrorism,
And 2 wars,
And now progressives want to attack him from his left.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
January 20, 2010 5:38 AM in reply to Darrius
Exactly. Which is the Republican strategy, very successfully executed, and they much appreciate the strong Progressive support, so thanks from them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
January 20, 2010 7:42 AM in reply to Overreach THIS!
Democratic Party seems to stand for nothing except getting themselves elected and your solution is to spit on the people who refuse to support that.
How did that work for you in Massachusetts?
The Democrats don't understand the difference between compromise and capitulation. You water everything down to try and please a group of people who have told you up front they are not going to accept ANYTHING you do - Obama could adopt the Republican Party platform and they would still call him a socialist. But you'd rather slide farther to the right in the name of "pragmatism" and lash out at the people who want the Democrats to stand up for their nominal principles.
Grovel to your enemies and scream at your friends; great party building strategy you got there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
January 20, 2010 12:53 PM in reply to cawleybo
Friends, huh?
Being held accountable: the *agony* of it!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
January 19, 2010 11:30 PM in reply to Darrius
Typical teabagger. Stuck in the 80s with borrow-and-spend St Gipper.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 19, 2010 11:39 PM in reply to Scott in PacNW
Tea-bagger????
I've never voted for a Republican ever. I always vote for the Democratic candidate on every level.
But that doesn't change the fact that if progressives kill the health care bill that is currently on the table the Democratic party will be broken, and Republicans will get their way for another 20 - 30 years. Progressives are doing the same thing all over again....they are attacking the Democratic party from the left and creating Ronald Regan.
They should agree with the Democratic compromise and pass the Senate bill. That way Dems can keep their power.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
January 20, 2010 1:13 AM in reply to Darrius
My bad. I read the first part about the ghost of Reagan & skipped the rest. Mea culpa.
I don't know that passing a POS senate bill will save the Dems. I expect the House to pass it, if only to stick to the obstructionist GOP.
But I'm not convinced the policy will ultimately help them politically. Especially if the forthcoming finance reform bill is just as friendly to corporate interests.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sailormarlowe
January 20, 2010 9:09 AM in reply to Darrius
Palin/Bachmann, 2012. Time for real progress, revolutionary change.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 19, 2010 10:15 PM
I hope that fist is aimed at Senator Webb.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OhioGuy
January 19, 2010 10:17 PM
It's time to put up or shut up now. Progressives in the House will have to decide whether to vote for this HCR or not. There's no more pretending there's another better option just around the corner, because there's not.
This can withstand the defection of the Blue Dogs if the liberal wing wants reform more than it wants to win the pissing contest that's been going on within the caucus.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
January 19, 2010 10:20 PM
Delusional.
I'd be thrilled if Democrats pulled this off...but I just don't think they have the courage to do it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chris
January 19, 2010 11:03 PM in reply to eratosthenes8
Yeah I don't think so either. They've had a year to do this with a double digit majority. Losing a seat won't fire them up any.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 19, 2010 11:42 PM in reply to Chris
Fear is the best motivator. Hopefully, this race will make them scared to drag this out any longer and go ahead and pass the Senate bill so that we can move on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 19, 2010 11:46 PM in reply to Darrius
For christ sake, please stop whining about the desperate need to pass the Senate POS. That is just what got us into this mess.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 19, 2010 11:57 PM in reply to wbgonne
No its not. Dragging the fight out is what got us into this mess. Everything that added time to the Health care debate did damage.
Max Baucus did damage. Then the Senate debate did damage. Now that the Senate has passed their bill the house progressives are doing the damage. They should pass the Senate bill now, and fix it in the future using the slim majority that the health care bill will allow dems to maintain.
If this health care bill fails dems will be judged to be unable to govern and lose one house in November 2010 and the other house, and the White House, in 2012.
And they will lose the White House in Ronald Reagan-like fashion to a Republican President who will make permanent changes to the right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 20, 2010 12:52 AM in reply to Darrius
Yes, well who allowed the fight to get dragged out so long that Americans -- not known for our long attention spans -- got bored, then angry? Um, that would be a president determined to appease the traitors in his own party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 20, 2010 1:05 AM in reply to wbgonne
Its the President's fault????
The President can't do anything to force the Senate to stop debate. Well he can't do anything but threaten to veto the bill. That will stop debate but it will also stop all work on the bill.
The dragging of the debate is not the President's fault at all. However, I want to call attention to something else.
You are still attacking President Obama FROM THE LEFT. You are making Ronald Reagan II as we speak. This is not the time to be attacking Democrats from the left. The last time Democrats did that we got Ronald Reagan. This time won't be any different.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 20, 2010 1:08 AM in reply to Darrius
Sorry but you are hopeless. Debate someone else.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
January 20, 2010 7:47 AM in reply to Darrius
you wander why we put so much energy, time and money into the election of an official the "can't do anything."
Somehow, I'm guessing you're more than happy to give him all the credit when (if?) the Congress passes good legislation ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
January 20, 2010 7:49 AM in reply to cawleybo
wonder
Altho wander might actually be just as accurate in this case ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kfreed
January 20, 2010 11:04 AM in reply to Chris
Unfortunately, if the Senate doesn't pass a bill then its toast. And with the Blue Dog Coalition and Lieberman hijacking the Senate and consistently voting with Republicans or otherwise insisting on the watering down of every bill that hits their desks, then there is no way to move forward. Get busy getting rid of the blue dogs and stop depending on Lieberman. That would be a start.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matt in so dak
January 19, 2010 10:22 PM
A) Stephanie Herseth Sandlin is a tool.
B) Pass Medicare expansion alone through reconciliation.
C) Open FEMA camps for tea baggers, and hire me as soap hander-outer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Elizabeth2
January 19, 2010 11:46 PM in reply to matt in so dak
And this takes care of problems like, oh, pre-existing conditions in what way? Pass the Senate bill to take care of the things reconciliation *can't* bring about.
Plus don't forget that reconciliation may only require a simple majority, but there are procedural votes along the way to a reconciliation vote that will require 60. The only way to keep the Republicans from effecting a total shut-out is for the House to pass the Senate bill.
And if the "progressives" are going to vote against it, I hope they do a roll call (can they have those in the House?) so that every single Republican and every single "progressive" Dem has to stand up and acknowledge what they are doing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 20, 2010 12:59 AM in reply to Elizabeth2
Oh, fuck that. This country has far bigger problems than pre-existing conditions. Sniveling incrementalism just delivered a MA senate seat to a Teabagging Neanderthal who just tried to pimp his American Idol daughter on national television. THIS WAS TED KENNEDY'S SEAT! The Dems are in freefall and only the president can pull the rip cord. Do it, Mr. President.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 19, 2010 10:28 PM
One thing nobody's addressing is that given a craven refusal to challenge the Senate supermajority nonsense in one way or another, there will also be no jobs bill. And regardless of what happens with health care, continued high unemployment with the perception that the government isn't even trying to do anything about it will be more than enough to sink the Dems.
An incoherent, lobbyist-run party that offers precious little to either its loyalists or independents will never hold power for long.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 19, 2010 10:43 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Different issue. Different bill. Let's see how many Republicans, Senate or House, want to vote "no" on adding jobs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 19, 2010 10:50 PM in reply to cube3u
100% of Republicans, who will say they're voting against another government boondoggle (and who have zero interest in making the economy better and thus helping Democrats). Surely that isn't so hard to figure out?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 20, 2010 2:09 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Get the jobs bill up for a vote and let's have the GOP incumbents on record with voting against jobs. There's no guarantee that every Dem candidate can use that information effectively in this year's election to unseat incumbents.
One thing I do see in this defeat is an anti-incumbent and anti-establishment stance amongst voters. Take advantage of it. I don't see it as an indictment of healthcare reform--I think it's more an indictment of dithering in Congress. This guy in Mass certainly sounded decisive and independent in his ads and I think that won him the votes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
January 20, 2010 3:14 AM in reply to cube3u
Do you think our weak, feckless Democratic leadership will do that? No, of course they won't. They'll just water the bill down until it's utterly meaningless and won't do anything at all to reduce unemployment and help the economy, and the Republicans will toss them a vote or two just so they can say that yet another Democratic initiative failed.
If you think it'll go any differently, you haven't been paying attention for the past year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
January 20, 2010 7:53 AM in reply to cube3u
Did you pay any attention at all to the Stimulus Bill? (Do you know the difference between a "stimulus" bill and a "jobs" bill? The name.)
How many republicans voted for that? And that was while the democrats still had some momentum from the election.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kfreed
January 20, 2010 11:12 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Bingo. Start turning the spotlight onto Republican obstructionism. Force an old-fashioned Republican fillibuster and televise it every single time the GOP proposes it. And I'm not referring to the hold-up-one-finger version of a fillibuster, I'm talking about the get-out-your-cots-and-read-from-the-telephone-book version of a fillibuster (the real deal). Time to start giving bad credit where bad credit is due.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
January 19, 2010 10:32 PM
Healthcare is history. The house has too many liberal egos to just pass the Senate version. One would think that losing the NJ and VA governorships would put a dent in the overweening arrogance of the left. But no, we can count on the left to commit legislative hari-kiri, by refusing to compromise the fantasy.
Works for me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 19, 2010 10:36 PM in reply to shooter242
Blah blah. The rebuke to a party that's done nothing but continually move to the right is somehow the fault of the (practically non-existent) left. Even a five-year-old could come up with a more intelligent analysis than that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 19, 2010 10:44 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
agreed. and sadly so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fiddystorms
January 19, 2010 11:58 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Wow, what an incredibly intellectual comment. No wonder why Martha was such a tough competitor, she had the smartest people on earth backing her. So far I hear everyone on your team saying that this is not a referendum on Obama and HCR. Obviously they aren't taking the same smart pills you guys are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
i said GOOD DAY sir
January 19, 2010 10:43 PM in reply to shooter242
I'll send you a sympathy card when they pass the bill.
What's your address? I'm guessing Alabama, Utah?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
January 19, 2010 10:54 PM in reply to i said GOOD DAY sir
Shooter? Alabama? Utah? Nawwwwww...with a name like 'shooter' it has to be Texas, the state that wants to secede.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
January 19, 2010 11:23 PM in reply to shooter242
Shooter puts forth a testable proposition. I predict the opposite: health care reform will pass. Alas, I would only take an even money bet.
If I'm wrong and Shooter is right, then the "House liberal Democrats are egomaniacs" hypothesis will be supported. Otherwise not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alex39
January 19, 2010 10:34 PM
If you have a Democratic Representative, write them *now* and let them know what you want. This is a gut-check moment, and it's going to happen very quickly, because the SOTU is the 27th. If you want input, it needs to go in tomorrow.
Personally, I think the House should pass the Senate bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Elizabeth2
January 19, 2010 11:49 PM in reply to Alex39
My message to my Congressman went yesterday --- and I agree, everyone should write to their Representative NOW and urge then to pass the Senate bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 20, 2010 1:07 AM in reply to Elizabeth2
Yeah, well here's what's what: I'm up late and I'm pissed off but first thing tomorrow morning I'm calling my congressman (Capuano) and telling him that under no circumstances should he vote for that POS that Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu et al passed for their insurance company masters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Majorajam
January 20, 2010 10:12 AM in reply to wbgonne
That POS is a massive improvement on the current system. I hope you get your way, the bill gets killed, then the Party, and then a few years hence you or someone you love gets ill only to find that the insurance company finds they had asthma or something and drops their coverage. Or to have them hit a lifetime maximum. Or to have them surreptitiously drop their coverage. You're so effing cavalier about the millions of Americans getting screwed to the wall by insurance companies at their most vulnerable moments, that would be only fitting.
You people are know-it-all finger-pointing dreamland-living wastes of space. 'If only Obama had the guts to face down Lieberman, none of this would have happened!!'. 'If only he'd listened to Jane Hamsher- she knows how to get legislation through Congress!!!' The political genius is mind boggling. But hey, why did health insurance stocks rally 3, 4, 5% on Brown's surge.... because the prospect of this bill dying was so unfortunate for the health insurance industry? The financial genius is likewise mind boggling.
Everyone's looking around for someone to blame. If I could I'd hand you all a fiver so you could go down to the local store and buy yourself a clue. Then you can waltz your dumb asses over to a mirror and be enlightened.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alexander
January 19, 2010 10:34 PM
What a bunch of idiots. The senate should just use the nuclear option. Finish the job you damned pansies!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
January 19, 2010 10:34 PM
"the only way they could sign on to the Senate bill is if it was accompanied immediately, or even preceded by, a separate bill, making a number of major preemptive changes to what they regard as an inferior package."
This sounds like a great plan. And you could do it without the Senate, so long as you use reconciliation. Just PASS. THE DAMN. BILL.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
McMia
January 19, 2010 10:39 PM
The "reconciliation fix" first. I like it Mr Nadler. And I wouldn't trust the bastards either.
Throw in a robust public option, which can be done through reconciliation, IIRC, and win back a boatload of the base at the same time.
Of course it won't happen.
A boy can dream...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
January 19, 2010 10:52 PM in reply to McMia
Throw in a robust public option, which can be done through reconciliation
Just checking, do we have enough votes in either the House or the Senate to pass a robust public option using reconciliation? Last I checked even the House could not get 50%+1 of its members to vote for a robust public option, and put in the "negotiated rates" version instead (although without weird abortion compromises mucking things up, maybe the number of votes in the House will change).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
McMia
January 19, 2010 11:03 PM in reply to mcc
I believe the votes are there in the Senate, but I'm not sure in the House. Good question.
Either way a lot of political calculations changed tonight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 19, 2010 11:10 PM in reply to McMia
You can't put in a pubic option through reconciliation anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 19, 2010 11:14 PM in reply to Darrius
Not true. In fact you don't even need reconciliation, it could just be in the budget plain and simple.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 19, 2010 11:16 PM in reply to Darrius
Why don't you stop wasting time moaning about what can't be done. Nothing is possible until it happens. Demand more from President Obama. Demand the change he promised.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
January 19, 2010 11:19 PM in reply to Darrius
I do not see why not? The public option can be justified as a budget item (I do not have a cite ready, but as I remember the CBO shows its inclusion reduces overall health care costs to the government) and it would easily clear the biggest hurdle reconciliation presents, the 10-year "sunset clause" restriction on funding (because the public option would be self-funding). What would you say is the limitation to passing a public option via reconciliation?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 19, 2010 11:50 PM in reply to Darrius
So you guys think that the Senate is taking all the political heat over their health care bill when they have this magic bullet called reconciliation that will allow them to pass public option and/or a medicare buy-in...but you think they just refuse to use it.
That is ridiculous. Politicians protect their own asses above all. If they could pass what they needed to pass with reconciliation and 50 votes + V.Pres, they would have done it already.
But you guys think they have a magic, pass-anything-with-50-votes bullet, but they simply refuse to use it. Lunacy!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
January 20, 2010 12:15 AM in reply to Darrius
I agree that there is a lot of misinformation out there about the reconciliation procedure.
I think that using reconciliation for some individual health care related items is a good idea, assuming we pass the base Senate bill also. It is my understanding of the reconciliation procedure that either a public option or a medicare buy-in, as standalone items, could be passed this way while still following the reconciliation rules.
I do not think the Senate is "holding back" from using reconciliation. I think that they have been making a reasonable effort to pass a bill through the normal procedure first-- as they should. I think that Congressional leaders talking up uses of reconciliation before the Senate has held its final vote on the bill would be foolish, because it could endanger passage of the main HCR bill. However, after tonight, it may be the case that the Senate has held its final vote on the bill. I think if we have reached that point, and the bill is now wholly in the House's court, then it is a reasonable time for the House to start looking at ways of using reconciliation to improve things.
It is not clear to me there is either the desire or the willpower within Congress to use reconciliation on health care. It is not clear to me whether, if Congress were to use reconciliation on health care, that the specific thing they would use it for is to pass a public option. It is not even entirely clear to me that, were we to decide to use reconciliation, a standalone public option could get 50%+1 votes in either the House or the Senate.
It still seems reasonable to ask Congress to try.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 20, 2010 2:01 AM in reply to Darrius
You forgot to mention ponies. And magic wands.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MrDean
January 19, 2010 11:16 PM in reply to McMia
Can't get a public option through reconciliation, the rules won't allow it. The Senate progressives can try for Medicare buy-in, but I'm not sure if there are 50 votes there. What definitely can be done is to change the excise tax and expand subsidies, which should be pretty easy.
Got to agree with the many commenters pointing out that there's no point in the Dem's giving Brown a second victory by abandoning HCR. They won't have this chance again, and to let the flagship legislation fail because of one idiosyncratic special election in a state that already has its own more liberal version of the bill would be balls-out ridiculous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Elizabeth2
January 19, 2010 11:53 PM in reply to McMia
Don't you have to have the Senate involved in a reconciliation bill? And if so it's no good b/c there are procedural votes along the way that will require 60 votes.
Why does it seem like Weiner (whom I've always liked), Nadler and the others are having their Joe-Lieberman-in-the-spotlight 15 minutes of intoxicating power and attention?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lord Mike
January 19, 2010 10:39 PM
Well, most of the concern is from the left, so I'm sure Rahm will be in there with his brass knuckles and work those guys over. I'd be much more worried if the concern was coming more from the conservadems, but they seem a little less miffed. They always liked the Senate bill better, anyways...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
January 19, 2010 11:42 PM in reply to Lord Mike
They always liked the Senate bill better, anyways...
Not entirely sure about this actually. The one point on which the Senate bill is much more progressive than the House bill is the abortion language, and this was also supposedly the one big hurdle to passage in the House...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
January 19, 2010 10:43 PM
The House needs to sit down with Rahm in the morning and plan a strategy for passing health care reform. I think adding a public option through reconciliation would be a very good thing too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 19, 2010 10:45 PM in reply to Maritza
I like that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 19, 2010 10:44 PM
Left and right need to grow the fuck up. We've been listening to prima donna's dragging their feet for 7 months.
PASS THE GODDAMN BILL.
You have til 2014 to revise it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 19, 2010 10:54 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
The party establishment needs to grow up and realize that this is a representative democracy and when you do not represent voters they act like grown ups and stop supporting you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
January 19, 2010 10:44 PM
Any Democratic House member that votes against the Senate bill should be kicked out of the party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 19, 2010 10:45 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Cosign.
Don't hand Scott Brown a second victory.
The GOP wants to kill HCR. Don't let them. Anyone who bails now is a TRAITOR.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
January 19, 2010 10:51 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Double co-sign. JUST.PASS.THE.BILL.GODDAMMIT.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 19, 2010 10:51 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
The GOP is likely to win either way considering how bad the bill is. The left made all the concessions and now the Blue Dogs wiil triangulate and blame the left for a bad bill. We'll never make any progress against Republicans until we defeat the Blue Dogs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
January 19, 2010 10:56 PM in reply to bluebell
The Repubs are now "purifying" their party, to make is as radical and insane a bunch as it can be. Why shouldn't the Democrats be eliminating the overly conservative (Repub) members who are killing off the party's chances in the next few elections. My suggestion is to first boot any committee chair who is refusing to play a team game here. Lieberman, of course, should be shown his new position - manager of toilets - ASAP. And, Conrad and his cohorts should soon join him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 19, 2010 11:00 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
Considering how badly Americans want to throw bums out, if the Democrats started playing hardball and casting a few out they might inspire the folks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 20, 2010 1:12 AM in reply to hoppycalif2
I like that. There is no point to a political party that lacks party discipline. Of course, Obama is the head of the Dem Party so we'll see whether he's got the guts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Puerco
January 19, 2010 11:02 PM in reply to bluebell
Give it up! The Senate bill is better than nothing. Nate Silver and Ezra Klein have provided enormous evidence to show that almost everybody at lower income levels will be better off under the Senate bill than they are now. They will get subsidies or Medicaid. If Health care does not pass, the Dems will lose the House and the Senate and health care reform will be dead for another 15 years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 19, 2010 11:17 PM in reply to El Puerco
Try selliing that argument to the middle class. Tell them you are going to tax their health benefits to expand Medicaid. See how you well that works. The problem with the bill is that there is too little equity in it for the middle class. It's not progresive enough. The wealthy aren't making any significant sacrifice at all so this is going to play right into Republican class warfare, i.e., pitting the middle class againt the poor. Meanwhile, they'll laugh because the corporations are going unscathed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
January 19, 2010 11:04 PM in reply to bluebell
I think that's the wrong way to look at it.
The bill is an improvement over the status quo, and they have the ability and the time to improve it. If they let it die, nothing will be done for a decade or more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 19, 2010 11:28 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Well, the nothing will be done for a decade or more assumes the party will be defeated for a decade. It's hard to be a change agent when you begin with the assumption of defeat. That's another reason the bill is so bad. People started by preemptively surrendering to the right and got no votes from Republicans anyway. If you were going to get 0 Republican votes and push the bill through on the basis of party loyalty, you could have expanded Medicare. I mean the party still does intend to support Medicare in the future? Does it? Maybe the voters aren't so sure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
January 20, 2010 12:07 AM in reply to bluebell
But it's not about the Republicans. They suck. We know that. Move on.
It's about having held together 60 disparate Democratic senators for sweeping legislation.
Now that we have accomplished that historic achievement, why should we throw it away?
This bill contains some terrific stuff: a heath care exchange, a ban on discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, measures that the CBO has said will bend the cost curve.
Is it flawless? Hardly, but it would be idiotically short-sighted to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
They can fix some of the problems in the Senate bill through the reconciliation process.
If Democrats can't govern despite controlling all three branches of government, they deserve to be thrown out of office, and there will be no second bite at the apple of HCR any time soon.
Mort importantly, the Republicans would have won by just saying no.
Why would any sentient Democrat want that to happen?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
January 20, 2010 3:19 AM in reply to Rich in NJ
This bill is substantially worse than the status quo. And as for improving it, answer me this: How is the Congress that screwed the bill up so badly in the first place going to improve it? Or alternatively, how is the next Congress, which will have a smaller Democratic majority, going to improve it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
January 20, 2010 12:06 PM in reply to NR
Through reconciliation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
January 20, 2010 3:18 AM in reply to Rich in NJ
Any Democratic House member that votes FOR this POS bill that's the insurance industry's biggest wet dream should be kicked out of the party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
January 20, 2010 12:08 PM in reply to NR
Then why did health care stocks go up yesterday when it appeared that Brown would win?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
January 20, 2010 1:01 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
OOOooooh, Good question!
Let's see what they come up with on that one!!
My prediction: either no reply, or cusswords. "You stupid fuck," etc. Let's see!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
January 19, 2010 10:52 PM
The news media agreed with the fabulous 7, or whatever it was, that said Democrats were bringing government to a halt when they threatened a filibuster for a few Bush appointed judges. They were very supportive of the "nuclear option" that would eliminate filibusters, and were even more supportive of the agreement that followed, where the Democrats promised not to filibuster anything unless it was exceedingly serious.
So, doesn't this mean the Democrats can pull off the same stunt? After all the Repubs aren't just filibustering appointments, but every damn thing that comes before the Senate. Surely that qualifies as bringing government to a halt, so it surely justifies a Democratic nuclear option. Ok,...now that we have that problem solved, let's move on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alexander
January 20, 2010 1:08 AM in reply to hoppycalif2
Exactly, there seems to be no reason the Democrats just can't use the nuclear option to get rid of the filibuster. Getting rid of the filibuster benefits the the democrats 100%. In fact, they should've just let the Republicans remove it when they threatened to. Why?
Because Democrats NEVER use the filibuster effectively. They ALWAYS cave when public opinion is against them when it comes to things that can be filibustered. Just look at the past 8 years. If Republicans want to pass some BS law when a Democratic president is in power, the president can just veto it and require the 67. It's very unlikely republicans will ever achieve a majority that high in the senate.
At this point, I would even argue that the concept of a filibuster would seem to violate the spirit of the Constitution. In the Constitution it says: "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business"
This means, that the senate need only have 51 members of the senate present to conduct business. If a situation were to arise in which 49 senators were unable to attend due to an invading army, one senator could severely limit the powers of the entire congress.
Reading further into the Constitution, one could easily argue that the senate is essentially unable to fully conduct business (aside from reconciliation, which is in itself handicapped). The Senate has apparently superseded the Constitution by requiring the 60 members vote in the affirmative for anything of worth to be accomplished.
In short, as reconciliation only allows for laws that affect taxes or spending directly to be passed, the congress in effect currently REQUIRES that 60 senators be supportive of the legislation in order for the full powers of congress to become available.
I think, if you had the right lawyer, even with THIS supreme court, you could theoretically win that argument. The only defense would be that the Constitution does allow the houses to make their own rules, to which I would respond, "The constitution is not a suicide pact. The constitution does not give you the power to shout 'fire!' in a crowded theater; nor does it give one senator the power to supersede the majority and handicap this nation."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
alkali
January 19, 2010 10:53 PM
The problem here is pace, not policy: the Democrats in Congress, with the notable exception of Speaker Pelosi, do not understand the importance of getting things done while you have the ability to do them. There would have been no rationale for a Brown campaign had this bill or any other f**king bill been passed in October. Pass this bill now and start ramming stuff through via reconciliation, starting with a jobs bill. The Democrats have to start running for reelection, and they have done nothing with their majority.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 19, 2010 11:03 PM in reply to alkali
So true
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HCTexas
January 19, 2010 10:58 PM
I used to think liberals (and I'm one of them) weren't so stupid as to let health care reform fail because they didn't get everything they wanted. But I now fear they are that stupid. And so are more than a few "blue dogs" who think they'll somehow be saved at the polls if health care reform doesn't pass. Idiots. God forbid that we pass a bill that gets 30 million more people health insurance, subsidizes costs to make it more affordable, forbids insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions and does a lot of other things liberals have been wanting for decades. And God forbid that "blue dogs" grow a freakin' spine instead of pissing their pants because the bad ol' Republicans will criticize them for doing the right thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nutter
January 19, 2010 11:05 PM in reply to HCTexas
Isn't it ironic? Under Clinton, the insurance companies destroyed health care reform. This time, the liberals did. Did LBJ had to deal with this too?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 19, 2010 11:16 PM in reply to Nutter
Baucus, Nelson and Lieberman are liberals? Wow, you're seriously delusional.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 19, 2010 11:18 PM in reply to Nutter
FUCK YOU. It is you DLC corporate ass-suckers who ruined health care reform. Unfortunately, many of your ilk presently populate the White House.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 19, 2010 11:09 PM in reply to HCTexas
I appreciate the political enthusiasm for passing anything, but the Senate bill actually hurts some of us in the middle class and while I could accept that if I thought the bill was a good bill, I really can't get excited about a bill that taxes some in the middle class to benefit a few others and pretty much leaves the wealthy clipping their coupons and admiring their bonuses. The bill doesn't do enough for the middle class to make it a political winner and not seeing any tangible benefits, voters aren't stupid to fear the costs.
That is of course the reason Democrats are incapable of explaining this bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HCTexas
January 19, 2010 11:30 PM in reply to bluebell
The "enthusiasm" I have for the Senate bill isn't political. It's based on my belief that, while the House bill would be preferable (to me, anyway), the Senate bill would still be a huge improvement over what we have right now. And it would be a benefit to the middle class. In our system, massive reforms are almost impossible to pass, and they hardly get more massive than health care reform. Pass it, then start working to improve it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Elizabeth2
January 20, 2010 12:02 AM in reply to HCTexas
Co-sign. The choice is NOT between the Senate bill and what-you-would-like-to-see ...... it's between the Senate Bill and what-we-have-now. That is the only choice that Congress has. You don't take this defeat, turn away from the whole thing, and suddenly get all the players in line to go for a more liberal option. It ain't going to happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
January 20, 2010 7:25 AM in reply to bluebell
The fact that you seem to think "the wealthy" would even contemplate "clipping coupons" doesn't exactly give me a lot of confidence in your understanding of the way the world works.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
happyrabo
January 20, 2010 4:20 PM in reply to Cool Blue Reason
So it is your position that wealthy people do not invest in bonds? Because I assure you, wealthy people do in fact clip coupons, in that sense.
http://www.atozinvestments.com/stocks-and-bonds.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TJ21
January 19, 2010 11:00 PM
We've heard "woe is me! the sky is falling! its all over!" nonsense from the likes of Evan Bayh, Carolyn Maloney, Stephen Lynch and others in the cowardly wing of the democratic party. But why?
In the same way that the tea-party and birther movements seem to be the emotional opposite of Obama's demeanor (calm and patient vs. insane and urgent), perhaps what we're seeing from the democrats today is another type of opposite-reaction to Obama's political maneuvering.
The President and White House have appeared poised and unfazed by this health care debate at almost every turn, and their strategy has been a fluid and malleable one. They've made concessions and compromises and in doing so have kept this bill afloat (and in my opinion, its still a very strong and very good piece of reform.)
Yet we're seeing a torrent of democratic legislatures employing political skills akin to a newborn child. Instead of being fluid, they're stiff and draw absurd lines in the sand. Instead of being poised, they preemptively prophesize their own doom, and instead of keeping the bill of afloat they are actively trying to drown it.
Its frustrating and its hard to really wrap my head around. All I know is, if this bill fails because a handful of democrats like Evan Bayh and Stephen Lynch... I will remember their names and I will use them as synonyms for gutlessness.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
January 19, 2010 11:07 PM in reply to TJ21
If you are right that the White House has approached this like adults and the Congress has acted like children, then I really, really hope that the White House is ready to be the adults tomorrow morning.
This next part is going to be really tricky.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TJ21
January 19, 2010 11:18 PM in reply to mcc
There's no doubt it'll be tricky, and unfortunately I don't have an ounce of confidence in the House, Senate or Democratic Party at large. What I'm counting on is both the resourcefulness of Speaker Pelosi and the political power of the White House.
Thats what I'm telling myself to get to bed tonight: We still have a very capable speaker of the house, and we still have a very capable President. Their ability or inability to bring everyone together (AGAIN!) is the final test.
Its sad, that this is the sum of all the democrats' power. They win the executive branch by a landslide, and control the legislature by a supermajority, and the best they can do is get a century-old goal of theirs to a spot three inches from the finish line.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
January 19, 2010 11:35 PM in reply to TJ21
Not a bad perspective. I am definitely happy to see Pelosi seemingly the one person NOT running around like a headless chicken right now.
It also is refreshing to see Pelosi and Steny Hoyer on the same page for once ever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oregonlefty
January 20, 2010 12:21 AM in reply to TJ21
Pass something - ANYTHING - wow, that's really "change we can believe in" how do you get Evan Bayh and Lynch in on the same conspiracy? And Obama poised and unfazed? How about disengaged and irrelevant?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
January 19, 2010 11:07 PM
It isn't over. Rahm will scream at everybody tomorrow and get them in line.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
edenton74
January 19, 2010 11:10 PM in reply to Maritza
They can't pass it through reconciliation because they need 60 votes to get to it procedurally. House needs to pass it or the Dems are done. Maybe Obama survives like Clinton did in 1996 but I doubt there will be a Perot to help him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
January 20, 2010 3:22 AM in reply to edenton74
If Obama loses in 2012, it'll be his own damn fault.
I'm starting to think that Obama isn't going to be good for anything except an object lesson as to what happens when you shit all over your own base.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
January 19, 2010 11:11 PM in reply to Maritza
Yeah, he has so much credibility now that his brilliant political strategy has worked SO well in VA, NJ and now MA.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
again
January 19, 2010 11:21 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne
Spot on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
January 19, 2010 11:53 PM in reply to again
Makes me wonder why it is that in all those three states we had shitty stupid and/or boring candidates who each ran a HORRIBLE campaign and blew it themselves.
In contrast, I don't know about fatass Christie, but in the other two, the GOP ran a great campaign, with likable, seemingly moderate guys running.
Dang it, I thought I'd learned it already, but every time this happens it's still amazing to remember many people are just suckers for pretty faces with an less than average brain.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
January 19, 2010 11:12 PM
59 or 60, what difference does it really make? What did 60 votes get us? a weak HCR bill with no public option. Embolden obstruction of Nelson and Lieberman. A lousy stimulus package. Seriously. Democrats did not lose much, because they didn't do much to begin with. Hopefully, they will reconsider reconciliation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AdAbsurdum
January 19, 2010 11:16 PM
"the only way they could sign on to the Senate bill is if it was accompanied immediately, or even preceded by, a separate bill, making a number of major preemptive changes to what they regard as an inferior package."
House Liberals after all these months finally discover incrementalism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
January 19, 2010 11:23 PM
If the House Democrats kill the bill, they'll be in the minority come November. They're pretty damn stupid, so I wouldn't put it past them though.
What are they going to run on on November "We did absolutely nothing in the year we had super majorities, but elect us to have it again"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsdc007
January 19, 2010 11:24 PM
I say stick it to the insurance companies now.
Pass a single piece of legislation that just says that "denying healthcare coverage for pre-existing conditions and terminating healthcare coverage because of the onset of illness is illegal."
That single provision is highly popular, but you know that Lieberman troll and Nelson and all the Republicans will vote against it.
Oh, and expand Medicaid to include 55-65 year olds, while also expanding Medicaid to the uninsured. That can be done with reconciliation.
And screw Harry Reid. He's incapable of leading. We need the President to lead, not just stay above the fray and play policy wonk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
raiatean
January 19, 2010 11:41 PM
Well, I guess that when the Blue Dogs step in feces it is with an elephants foot.. Now that the Shyte is spread finely around with a little on each one of them perhaps we can break out a fire hose and give a little high pressure salt water wash down to these stupid sons and daughters of bitches....
To me, the Democrats have become Repigliklann Lite, absolutely terrified of their own shadows and nothing gets done. As far as the Health Care Bill, all that is left is the afterbirth, you already aborted the baby. There is nothing there except lots of perks for the very rich and the insurance companies. I personally will work to see that anyone who supports this piece of crap doesn't get past a primary.
I only became a Democratic Party member to see someone used to admire greatly achieve our dreams, which after the swearing in he threw into the garbage.
As far as I am concerned I hope that the House shitcans this bill and everyone walks away. It's time that the Democratic Party returned to it's roots, If you want to be a Blue Dog, then there should be no place for you in any committee or anything else, You could go over to the Republicans, they like turncoats, liars, and traitors... You are Cowards! I wouldn't give you the back of my hand.
Democratic Party Voter? F.U!!! Never again.. At least the Socialists do not lie to me... I will never work for a Democratic event again... You aren't worth it...
Just this old Chief's 2¢
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe Buck
January 19, 2010 11:43 PM
There's a way to move forward.
Progressive Democrats shouldn't just accept the Senate bill; not unless they want organized labor to sit out 2010. This would mean going back on the deal Democrats made to fix the tax on health benefits.
Instead, the House should quickly prepare a second bill, one that makes changes to health care reform that are allowed by the reconciliation rules and that can get 50 votes in the Senate. Then the House can pass both bills together. Then the Senate bill becomes law, and the Senate as part of the deal would take up the second House bill.
The House can make sure that this second bill contains popular measures that they can run on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Elizabeth2
January 20, 2010 12:06 AM in reply to Joe Buck
To repeat -- the reconciliation vote in the Senate may require only 51 votes ..... but to get TO reconciliation there are procedural votes along the way that require 60. It isn't going to be possible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jollyroger
January 20, 2010 12:19 PM in reply to Elizabeth2
I'm confused--can you flesh this out? Do you mean the unanimous consent to proceed thingie? What good is recon if there are prior cloture occasions needing the full 60? How did the Thugs manuever this re:tax cuts of 2001?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
massdem
January 19, 2010 11:43 PM
The MA voters told Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Emanuel, Axelrod, and all those other morons who have forced this "reform" bill down our throats while wheeling and dealing with the corporate interest groups, bribing senators, and making back room deals with the unions, to basically Go To Hell!
I am a Dem but I am sick to death of giving a "pass" to Obama who has shown little if any leadership or interest in where this nation is heading. All that crapola about "hope and change" can now be charged to the Scott Brown campaign who took advantage of an administration , much too busy scooping up unearned awards and breaking every promise made to the electorate when running for office.
The people of MA have sent a message. The Dems better sit up and take notice as more of these upsets are sure to arise if they continue along the path in refusing to listen to the voices out there.
Obama is merely handing the GOP the weapon to rescue the power once again. He bears much of the blame for this debacle as anyone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
merlot
January 19, 2010 11:43 PM
Time to bring Pelosi down, she is not competent
she is an embarassemtn to women across the country...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
merlot
January 19, 2010 11:45 PM in reply to merlot
We need a Speaker of the House with balls and Pelosi doesn't have them figuratively or literally...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
merlot
January 19, 2010 11:46 PM in reply to merlot
Lastly, Baltimore is minor league politics... no one cares who Pelosi's father was....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
merlot
January 19, 2010 11:51 PM
More importantly, this is the time to destroy DINOs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
merlot
January 19, 2010 11:57 PM in reply to merlot
More importantly, it is time for so-called Independents to realize reality...you can choose between the jezus freaks or objective facts.... your emotions do not matter... your fears do not matter... grow up, grow some gonads... of course, u won't do it because you don't have the intellectual capacity to do it thanks to the GOP....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 20, 2010 1:17 AM in reply to merlot
Take another 10 mg. No. Better make it 20.;
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tytester
January 19, 2010 11:52 PM
By attempting bipartisanship and compromise with the GOP, Obama managed to triangulate himself into a lame duck after only one year in office! This is a remarkable achievement - there have been many one-term presidents, but NOT one has managed to become a lame duck during his very first year in office. So, congratulations Barry - you are a remarkable weasel!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
merlot
January 20, 2010 12:04 AM
We are one vote down, time to throw Joe Lieberman out the back door... as well as all the DINO dems... Blanche Lincoln was worthless the day she was born... who cares what Arkansas thinks... she's a bull dyke with no teeth, god help her husband... giving voice to Sens who represent 10% of Americans is crazy... the time has come to put ignornant farmers in their place...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Elizabeth2
January 20, 2010 12:09 AM in reply to merlot
What a great idea! Let's act like the Republicans and "purify" our party! ....... No, thank you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
libera101
January 20, 2010 12:06 AM
Ironic this is Teddy's seat... Could it be a sign.. Reconciliation with a public option may be possible now that this seat was lost.. I say this could be a silver lining. When handed lemons make lemonade.. I hope thats what Obama and Axe are thinking right now..
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jmnyc
January 20, 2010 12:06 AM
Nadler actually signaled how you have a conference on this w/o having a conference report. You negotiate the changes, almost all of which will fit nicely into a reconciliation bill, pass the Senate bill and immediately take up reconciliation afterwards. It is a little round about but totally doable.
Also, I am very thankful the House is holding the ball right now b/c Nancy Pelosi is a strong Speaker and my guess is will figure out how to make this work. We'd be screwed if Harry Reid held the chips right now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Elizabeth2
January 20, 2010 12:17 AM in reply to jmnyc
Hmmmm... not totally clear on the logistics but I could see how that might work. The Republicans don't think the Dems have enough guts to simply jump in and pass the Senate bill. (And I'm not positive they do either, sad to say.) But IF they do, from that moment on things are changed -- instead of Scott the Giant Killer (vote #41 and scaring everyone away from health care), it would be Scott the Stumbling Block: "ooops, you freed up the Dems to become gutsy .. we may be in trouble" If only they will do it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jmnyc
January 20, 2010 12:40 AM in reply to Elizabeth2
I worked on the Hill during 1993-94 and Josh's analysis is right that the Dems can't abandon ship on healthcare. Neither end game is good but it would be disasterous to not pass a bill. If people do not believe the Dems can govern they are screwed as a party.
An interesting contrast is what happened to Clinton's popularity after the 1993 budget bill was passed. It went up and was actually decent (slighlty above 50%) for the early part of 1994. It went down the tubes in mid-summer which was the same time the Dems gave up healthcare reform.
In short, the Dems need to stop being cowards everytime something bad happens and show some guts. If the Rs had suffered a similar defeat, they would not run away the way the Dems seem to be.
Time to show some spine.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 20, 2010 1:39 AM in reply to jmnyc
Time to show some spine! By passing a craven regressive POS that DLC-Dem Hos delivered for their corporate masters? Yeesh. What now passes for Democratic spine wouldn't impress a jellyfish.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Elizabeth2
January 20, 2010 7:39 AM in reply to wbgonne
And your proposed course of action is ....... ? Sit in your corner with righteous indignation? Sorry, but my daughter doesn't have and can't get health insurance and she could under this POS. So could a lot of other people. Don't be a Republican -- "we don't like this proposal but we're not going to do lift a finger to get people something else"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jollyroger
January 20, 2010 12:53 AM in reply to jmnyc
pass the Senate bill and immediately take up reconciliation afterwards.
I think you have it backwards. As I understand it, there is no obstacle to passing the reconciliation/budget stuff (public optgion, anyone?) first, send it to senate, demand senate approve via normal majority rule (what a concept!) and then pass the Senate Bill with it's policy (non-budget) desiderata.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Elizabeth2
January 20, 2010 7:32 AM in reply to jollyroger
You can't get to the up and down vote on reconcilliation without surviving several procedural votes that are necessary to get TO the reconcilliation vote. Otherwise I'd agree ... but it's another pathway that is stopped by a brick wall. If the Senate bill is passed by the House, the whole landscape is shook up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jollyroger
January 20, 2010 12:13 PM in reply to Elizabeth2
the whole landscape is shook up.
On reflection, I see your point--two more months could wreck further havoc on Dem numbers--but, query: Can progressives trust a putative reconciliation fix after the fact? It's not like Prez has been the "honor bright" kid vis-a-vis previous policy commitments...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jollyroger
January 20, 2010 12:41 PM in reply to Elizabeth2
several procedural votes that are necessary to get TO the reconcilliation vote
as above, plz explain.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
merlot
January 20, 2010 12:10 AM
Dear Nancy Pelosi: You are now reaping what you seeded... if you are concerned for Americans, we do not not need pussies... we need people with balls like Mary Chase Smith. It is time to resign Nancy and let the grown ups take charge.... your Daddy's history doesn't give you a pass... in fact, your Dadd's history suggests you should retire and let adults handle things....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oregonlefty
January 20, 2010 12:10 AM
Just joining in here after reading TPM for years. When did Josh / TPM go all DLC on us regarding health care reform - as in "we have to pass ANYTHING or we're all doomed". I have had a lot of respect for TPM and Josh over the years, but this sounds way too much like he's somehow been put in the veal pen on this issue. One has to wonder why?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PJCoco
January 20, 2010 12:23 AM
I have had it with this entire administration and the Dems. I see no difference between them and the GOP except for the names. Obama IS the establishment candidate and the establishment is Conservative Republican. Everything ObamaRahma has been doing since January is more Bushlike than Bush. As Howard Feinman has said, Obama took his winnings and turned them over to Max Baucus. Baucus is a conservative. Let's stop treating this president as if there is still any of the HOPE and CHANGE in him he promised us. It was never there and never will be. Yes, he may lose in 2012, but there's a place being held for him in the private sector that will make him the big bucks he's being promised now. He's not agonizing over a second term. He's agonizing over a second job in corporate America. I am totally disgusted with this person I put so much energy and money into. We're screwed and ObamaRahma chooses to be blind to us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gunslinger
January 20, 2010 8:05 AM in reply to PJCoco
Stop freaking out! Obama has not failed. I repeat Obama has not failed. You see, the problem is people like you, "my way or the high way"! Do you think there is anything that makes you different to Bush? You have to realise that you live in the real world and in the real world, real people compromise in order to get things done. The progressives like Arianna Huffington whines too much, you guys needs to rally around Obama and not beat him over and over with the lack of public option in the current bill. Public option will come, but you need to wait for it. Don't forget, good things come to those who are patient.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PJCoco
January 20, 2010 1:35 PM in reply to gunslinger
Sorry, friend, there ain't no good things commin'. I am not whining about the public option, Obama gave that up before negotiations even began. Nothing to whine about there. I am whining about all the HOPE and CHANGE that Obama left at the podium immediately after being sworn in. He has surrounded himself with Wall Street promoters, made secret deals with PhRMA and the insurance industry, given the people's money to the banks and the too-big-to-fail money grubbers asking nothing in return and imposing no regulation, at all. He has lost a good deal of his independent supporters, his liberal supporters, and his African-American supporters; he has continued the Bush war policies and is protecting the Bush war criminals by refusing to prosecute anyone. Shall I go on? No, Obama hasn't failed, he has succeeded beautifully with the agenda he kept nicely hidden during his campaign and which he has brought out in all its conservative splendor--of course with the help of the Blue Dog Supreme, Rahm Emanuel.
You believe "The progressives like Arianna Huffington whines too much, you guys needs to rally around Obama and not beat him over and over...." Yes, we should rally around Obama, give him more of OUR money so AIG, Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup, et al can keep their heads above the water in their swimming pools; reliquish our jobs so Wall Street can post greater earnings; send our boys overseas to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter a place no one has been able to overtake for more than 2000 years, not even the Afghanistanis. We will rally around Obama as 42,000 people die each year without medical care. We will rally around Obama as children in this wonderful nation die of malnutrition and, possibly, exposure because they are living in cars or on the street, or even in infested shelters while mommy and daddy stand in line for handouts of food. And, we will rally 'round our HOPEless and CHANGEless leader as the Oligarchy gains more and more power to buy and sell our politicians and control our country. I just can't wait to rally 'round this guy some more!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
January 20, 2010 12:23 AM
Josh feels that way because an imperfect bill might be made more perfect through incrementalism. Which might have been true if Reid hadn't allowed himself to be punked by Olympia Snowe.
Vote Green I say, Congress will still be useless and nothing will get done....but you will feel a hell of a lot better about yourself and that seems to be the only thing you could hope to accomplish by voting now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
January 20, 2010 1:22 AM in reply to Max Thrax
Vote Green? might as well just stay home.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
January 20, 2010 12:26 AM
Fine. Let the Red-Staters who buy the Republican package because of gay marriage fears and immigration gripes derail health care reform. Those gap-toothed morons are going to be the first to go bankrupt paying Big Insurance, Big Pharma and Big Hospital for medical services. Screw 'em.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tpinlb
January 20, 2010 12:33 AM
The lesson for the party is that it must break with the failures of the Obama administration. The democratic party needs Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s policies, not Herbert Hoover’s pro-bankster policies. This election was clearly a repudiation of Obama.
People will not accept slashing medicare spending, nor the forced purchase of insurance from thug insurance companies – both at the heart of Obama’s health care plan.
People won’t accept the continuing bailout of Wall Street and the banksters by Obama and his friends Bernanke, Geithner, Summers.
People won’t accept Obama’s escalation of the war in Afghanistan.
People won’t accept the president’s “no growth” carbon tax cap and trade that will kill energy intensive industries in the US and drive all of this real production overseas.
If the democrats are to provide real leadership, we must organize the flow of government credit to put the unemployed back to work in skilled, physically productive jobs… and this means real industrial jobs, not “green jobs” like washing solar panels and maintaining windmills – but real jobs building hospitals and schools and water projects and high speed rail lines and nuclear power plants. The insolvent large banks, who with twisted accounting have largely avoided realizing most of their losses in real estate and speculative paper, must be taken through bankruptcy reorganization, and the speculative unpayable debts written off. We must start again the flow of credit specifically targeted to real production in agriculture, mining, forestry, and industrial development.
The key is to have a pro-growth, pro-progress, intensive industrial expansion program that will put people back to work and improve everyone’s standard of living. This is the only solution. If the democrats fail to do this, then the people will throw them out of office.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gunslinger
January 20, 2010 7:58 AM in reply to tpinlb
Stop freaking out! Obama has not failed. I repeat Obama has not failed. You see, the problem is people like you, "my way or the high way"! Do you think there is anything that makes you different to Bush? You have to realise that you live in the real world and in the real world, real people compromise in order to get things done. The progressives like Arianna Huffington whines too much, you guys needs to rally around Obama and not beat him over and over with the lack of public option in the current bill. Public option will come, but you need to wait for it. Don't forget, good things come to those who are patient.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jollyroger
January 20, 2010 12:53 AM
pass the Senate bill and immediately take up reconciliation afterwards.
I think you have it backwards. As I understand it, there is no obstacle to passing the reconciliation/budget stuff (public optgion, anyone?) first, send it to senate, demand senate approve via normal majority rule (what a concept!) and then pass the Senate Bill with it's policy (non-budget) desiderata.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
January 20, 2010 1:09 AM in reply to jollyroger
There's no procedural restriction to this, no, but it sounds like a really bad idea to me. First off, it means more delay. Maybe lots more delay. Isn't reconciliation time-consuming? And doesn't it require you to pass a budget bill, which would be a darn weird thing to do in February? Think about how things have been the last few months, with that 2000-page bill pending. Everything in Congress has come to a grinding halt. You really want two more months of that? Would the Senate be able take up or pass the jobs bill if it absolutely had to get a budget reconciliation maneuver done before we could have any closure on the health care thing?
I definitely get the idea of wanting to delay so we can use it as a bargaining chip to make sure we get the public optgion or whatever and the reconciliation stuff isn't just snatched away once the Senate bill passes. But delay is what got us in the fix we are in now. I think the longer we wait the harder things will get.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jollyroger
January 20, 2010 12:34 PM in reply to mcc
a budget bill
I think that you can have a reconciliation instruction in any bill with bugetary implications (tho it does have to come out of a house or senate "budget committee", which I always thought was why Prez bent over for Baucus the way he did"
That said, (see colloquy above with Eliz.) if you need 60 to get past the unanimous consent to consider thing or whatever, then I suppose the tactical considerations that recommend reconciliation are rendered nugatory.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
January 20, 2010 1:29 PM in reply to jollyroger
That's interesting, thanks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jollyroger
January 20, 2010 1:01 AM
In a counter-intuitive way, the Brown win may empower the progressive side, by forcing otherwise reconciliation resistant senators into a survival mode posture where they accept it as the price of house approval of the original senate hcr bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Isepick
January 20, 2010 1:17 AM
I think that the Progressives (Weiner, et al) are just making noise and will fall in line. How often is it that the Progressives actually matter to the rest of the Democratic Party? They will probably push hard for a public option now in the reconciliation portion. Pelosi will whip them into line, I swear that woman must have dirt on everyone ;). She seems to be the *only* leader in the Democratic Party right now. I believe her more than I do the President when she says HCR will pass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LBJs Brain
January 20, 2010 1:17 AM
Lets break this thing down: what happens in Nov. if HCR doesn't pass? Anyone here think Dems will hold many seats? Nah, didn't think so. Anyone think they will lose more seats? Yeah, that's more like it. Pass the damb bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bw
January 20, 2010 1:22 AM
One needs to ask who’s responsible for the failure of Health Care Reform and now the lost of the Super Majority the sixtieth vote. The people responsible besides President Obama are a handful of Conservative Democratic Senators. These Senators are Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Kent Conrad, Mary Landrieu, and Max Baucus and let’s not forget traitor Joe Lieberman. These Senators need to pay a price both politically and stature within the Democratic Party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pstamler
January 20, 2010 1:25 AM
When in danger, when in doubt
Run in circles, scream and shout
I don't have the answer, but I can tell you that this ain't it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 20, 2010 7:23 AM
You can't persuade people with your beliefs and arguments; nobody believes anything that a person says. YOU PERSUADE PEOPLE WITH YOUR ACTIONS, people always believe what you do. They have no choice; actions produce tangible results.
Power is more important than principle. Power is what actually gets things done. The sick people don't need politicians who have the right principles and stick to them no matter what; they need politicians who have the power to help them and USE THAT POWER no matter what. If they don't get politicians who use that power no matter what they die.
You've got principles; the country has got 10% unemployment and 30 to 40 million uninsured people. Principles mean nothing to these people, not your principles, not my principles, not Democrat's principles, not Republican's principles. All that matters to these people is WHO USES THAT POWER TO HELP THEM.
If Democrats don't pass their only option to help the people now, the Senate bill, then they won't use their power to help the people and the people will take that power and give it to the Republicans,...House, Senate, and White House.
That's why I say get ready for Ronald Reagan II, because progressives holding on to their principles right now is going to create another
Reagan-like Republican Presidency. Past ACTIONS have proven it. Democratic in-fighting leads to Democratic impotence. Democratic impotence while the country is suffering leads to Republican domination.
You think the country will eventually go along with Democratic ideals if Democrats stick to their principle come no matter what.
I think the country will eventually go along with Democratic ideals if Democrats give the people a job and some health care when they are sick.
If you are still advocating that the Democrats not pass the Senate bill, get ready for the next Ronald Reagan. He is almost here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
social nature
January 20, 2010 8:40 AM in reply to Darrius
So, what's going to save the Democrats is pretending that the baldly pro-corporate legislation written by Max "Insurance Industry Sweetheart" Baucus, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman, and Mary Landrieu is really reform?
That is exactly the wrong lesson to draw from this debacle.
So, progressives are wrong, the voters of Massachusetts are wrong, and those who just presided over and are responsible for this huge electoral rebuke are right? I don't think so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 20, 2010 12:30 PM in reply to social nature
The Senate bill is reform. The Senate bill will insure 94% of the American population. That's almost everybody. But progressives don't actually care about how many people they help, they care about the way that we do it. They want to do it their way.
Regardless of that the alternatives are 1)We move the country slowly to the left or 2) we allow Republicans to move the country even further to right.
If Democrats can't use the power to help who they can the people will take that power and give it to the Republicans. Attacking the Democratic party from the left is going to get us another Ronald Reagan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gunslinger
January 20, 2010 7:50 AM
I am from the UK and it baffles me why so many people in your country despises Obama. We wish we had a leader like him here.
Also, to say that Obama has not achieved much is the biggest lie of the millennium. Moreover, what is so bad in having free health care? And what is the problem with the middle ground? Let me be clear, this loss can be blamed on the extreme left element of the democratic party that refuses to accept that in life you always and often have to compromise to get anything done.
Websites like the huffington post have turned against Obama because the public option was not part of the senate bill, on the other hand, they forgot that some things must be done in an incremental manner.
In closing, Americans do not appreciate what they have in Obama and as such, they do not deserve him
America under Bush - Gave aid to african countries to give their population free HIV drugs, while letting Americans die because of lack of health care
America under Bush - Started two wars, wrecked the economy with tax cut for massive corps, but failed to provide universal health care for Americans.
America today is the most unequal society in the developed world and all thanks to the republicans. Hope the people of Mass. get what they deserve "NO CHANGE"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
randomname
January 20, 2010 9:03 AM in reply to gunslinger
Thank you. You see it...I can't understand why so many others do not see it.
I need to move to an English speaking European country. The USA is doomed. We are Rome & Rome is burning.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
January 20, 2010 10:10 AM in reply to gunslinger
I agree. Many, many Americans cannot see how Obama is tirelessly working to repair the damage done by Bush/Cheney. They grasp at straws, believing any dimwit who promises immediate improvement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
social nature
January 20, 2010 8:33 AM
Pres. Obama escalated in Afghanistan. He became the owner of Bush's foreign policy folly.
Pres. Obama continued Paulson's Wall Street giveaway. He became the owner of Bush's blatantly pro-corporate policy.
Pres. Obama and the Democrats pursued bipartisanship in preference to writing strong legislation on HCR, the stimulus, and other bills. He becomes the owner of Bush's failed economic policies.
Is it fair that after a mere 12 months, the catastrophe of the Bush administration is laid on Pres. Obama's shoulders? Maybe not, but politics is supposed to be fair? Please....
It's clear that the 'purists' have had it right all along. Will the Democrats listen?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SaveElmer
January 20, 2010 9:03 AM
Delusional...
Not because, as Barney Frank seems to say, that we should back off because the original bill was passed before Brown's victory and thus no longer represents the will of the people...
Rather, you are going to see a drumbeat of DINO whiners begin to back off supporting any bill whatsoever in a vain attempt to preserve their electoral viability. Herseth is just the first...
It is dead for a generation...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zell
January 20, 2010 9:19 AM
Well, I certainly hope that the answer is "determined", but I can't help but note that "determined" and "delusional" are not the only two possible answers. For example, "lying".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dfunzy
January 20, 2010 10:09 AM in reply to Zell
The Democrats should remain determined to enact real health care reform that will make health insurance affordable. The Senate Bill won't do that, for that reason health reform has become unpopular. Now is the time to re-tool and to deliver what can be gotten now, with the promise that the fight isn't over for what is needed.
The Democrats should deliver on making improvements, getting low-cost, affordable health insurance coverage for the millions working poor, making insurance policies available across state lines and portable from job to job, shoring up Medicare & Medicaid, encouraging small business and nonprofits to form collectives that will offer low cost health insurance to their employees, while reminding the public of the larger goal of universal coverage. The Democrats will only lose if they throw up their hands and do nothing, or go the in-your- face-you-Repub-retards and ram through an unpopular bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsdc007
January 20, 2010 10:27 AM
You carve up the bill, retain the popular elements of the bill like banning insurance denial for pre-existing conditions.
This would in effect be a bigger blow to the insurance companies than if the Senate bill had been written into law.
Obama was elected to be a pragmatic populist, and its about time he shows that he has the political chops to be one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
January 20, 2010 11:52 AM
Good we deserve it......Those who have it, don't want it or know what the uck to do with it.
When you loose it, don't complain.
To those 12 blue dogg arse holes.....uck off and I hope you take a beating like MA just took.
The dems ucked around, and ucked around, including you Mr. President Obama, we elected you to fight for shit we have not have a chance to fight for and what happens...you water the darn thing down waiting for one of the klansmen men or the two klanswoman 9Ugly arse Snow or Collins) to do some sort of majical vote.
Guess what....you waited and this is what the elected dems got....more water on a bill that has taken of 1/4th of the 4 yrs Obama was elected.
Let the clowns figure this out but Make it fucking quick.
JOBS, JOBS, JOBS
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shle896
January 20, 2010 12:58 PM
I am DISGUSTED with the Dems. For God's sake, they had an entire calendar year to come together and pass meaningful legislation and now look at them. They're playing right into the GOP's hands.
If the Republicans were holding a super majority and held the presidency, they wouldn't hesitate to push their agenda through.
I am ASHAMED of my party. They're coming off as a bunch of weak , naive ninnies. They have managed to take a once in a lifetime opportunity to get things done and throw it down the toilet.
What a joke!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Independent
January 20, 2010 1:50 PM
We just fired the shot heard around the world, again.
Do you remember what happened the last time?
Proud Massachusetts Voter...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jollyroger
January 20, 2010 3:02 PM
Prez on air right now saying Brown will get to weigh in on HCR, ergo no House vote on Senate Bill.
We are so fucked.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?