TPMDC

Lincoln, Bayh Won't Support Passing Health Care Fixes Via Reconciliation

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Two Democratic senators, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, have declared that they won't support a plan to have the House pass the Senate health care bill whole, then pass fixes to the bill through the reconciliation process.

A third, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, suggested lawmakers give up on the comprehensive health care bill entirely and pass reforms one by one.

"We need to focus on things where we have a consensus," Bayh said."Just ramming through a bill on a purely party-line vote on a strictly partisan basis will not do much to generate the kind of progress around here on other issues that we need."

Bayh also said he doesn't understand why the Senate dropped the version of the bill passed by the Finance Committee with one Republican vote. "Maybe we should take another look at that," he said. "If Sen. Snowe was willing to vote for it, perhaps there were other Republicans who were willing to."

Under reconciliation, legislation could pass with 50 votes (plus Vice President Biden as a tie-breaker), with no chance of a filibuster. So Democratic leadership could afford to lose a few votes and still be able to pass changes to the Senate bill.

Bayh's colleague, Lincoln, released a statement declaring her opposition to the idea.

"I am opposed to and will fight against any attempts to push through changes to the Senate health insurance reform legislation by using budget reconciliation tactics that would allow the Senate to pass a package of changes to our original bill with 51 votes," she said. "I will not accept any last-minute efforts to force changes to health insurance reform issues through budget reconciliation, and neither will Arkansans."

Nelson suggested abandoning comprehensive reform altogether and adopting an incremental approach.

"This is one where we need to make a pie a piece at a time," Nelson said. "We've tried a comprehensive approach and it's clear that won't be possible."

(This post was edited from the original.)

Comments (124) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

mcc

user-pic

January 26, 2010 2:39 PM   

The entire reason people have been clamoring all year to use reconciliation for things is it means Lincoln, Bayh, Nelson aren't needed

Get the list of nonsupporters up to 9 and we have a problem

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:43 PM    in reply to mcc


Lincoln, Bayh, Nelson.

Landrieu and Lieberman will be next. The Dems are going to have to hold on to four.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

mcc

user-pic

January 26, 2010 2:49 PM    in reply to CT Voter

The critical thing is Conrad's by his last statements actually supportive of the sidecar strategy, and as I understand since he's head of the budget committee he's the most important person in the Senate for these purposes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:50 PM    in reply to mcc

It all depends on what they're asked to pass via reconciliation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:06 PM    in reply to OhioGuy

Hmmm...
Considering his attitude on this, I would make the first item up to be a repeal of Nelson's deal for Nebraska

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:21 PM    in reply to davcbr

Amen. Then Landrieu.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:33 PM    in reply to wbgonne

Landrieu's deal should def be scrapped if she isn't supporting it. As well as all of the concessions do-able in whatever sidecar legislation is done that Nelson won.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:35 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

Honestly, I'm reluctant to penalize Louisiana in any way with all they've had to deal with. But Landrieu is really just a crook.

GEAUX SAINTS!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:45 PM    in reply to wbgonne

"GEAUX SAINTS!"

DITTEAUX!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 27, 2010 2:11 PM    in reply to wbgonne

If they gave me a free touchdown, maybe I could geaux to the Super Bowl too.
It's where the ball is when the knee lands. Check the tape.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:49 PM    in reply to CT Voter

Kick their miserable asses out of the caucus!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:05 PM    in reply to wbgonne

Arkansas voters are going to help us with that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:22 PM    in reply to Darrius

Yes. E-mail the DNC and the DSCC and tell them you won't contribute a penny if it goes to Lincoln's re-election.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:59 PM    in reply to mrut

We got ActBlue now. We don't need no stinkin' DxCC or DNC. You can make your own fundraising page and get folks to contribute. Fsck the DxCC. I contributed to DNC when Dean was at the wheel and the 50-state strategy was happening ... no longer.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:25 PM    in reply to Darrius

True. But the party should do it itself. Obama should insist. I am not, however, going to hold my breath until it happens.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:23 PM    in reply to wbgonne

You shouldn't kick someone out of the caucus for voting the way they feel they should in order to get re-elected. Voting against your party on an issue is not the same as not voting for cloture.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:50 PM    in reply to CT Voter

Then you got Byrd, who hates reconciliation, so now you're down to three; Bill Nelson, Max Baucus and Kent Conrad now rule the day, without those three, you're down to 49 and that's assuming Feingold votes for it, he's another one who hates reconciliation and Ron Wyden who thinks we should go back to being bipartisan.

So even reconciliation is going to be governed by the deciding votes; Nelson of Florida, Baucus and Conrad.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:53 PM    in reply to dtOZONE

Byrd doesn't hate reconciliation. He hates what he perceives to be abuse of reconcilation. The fiscal fixes that the House wants should fit right into his philosophy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:55 PM    in reply to OhioGuy

Byrd opposed reconciliation for Clinton's healthcare plan in 1993.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

mcc

user-pic

January 26, 2010 3:08 PM    in reply to dtOZONE

Though I wouldn't have high hopes for Byrd, I don't think you can assume that opposing reconciliation for a big-ticket item such as a health care reform bill equates to opposing reconciliation for the small-scale "sidecar" fixes we are discussing here.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:48 PM    in reply to dtOZONE

Byrd is a (D) first and foremost. He'll vote "aye".

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:59 PM    in reply to OhioGuy

And that was before the GOP took the extraordinary position that they would filibuster EVERYTHING. The old rules can't apply. And as a Senate-philiac (?) Byrd must despise what the Repubs have done to the Senate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:30 PM    in reply to dtOZONE

Baucus and Conrad were the first two Senators to say "reconcilation" after Brown won.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:49 PM    in reply to DA in LA

Doesn't make me feel better and I'll tell you why. Baucus and Conrad may very well be the 49th and 50th votes, which means they will control the process, what goes in the reconciliation fixes, what comes out. etc.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 5:55 PM    in reply to dtOZONE

I think if you're looking for medicare buy-in or a public option to come out of reconciliation, you're going to be disappointed. But that was never going to happen with Conrad as the guy in charge of reconciliation.

The fact that Lincoln and Bayh are coming out against reconciliation is, I think, actually a good sign. It means that Reid is actually making a serious push to do the reconciliation fix.

These three, along with Landrieu and Lieberman, were almost certainly never going to support reconciliation.

Lose those five, and you still have 54 potential votes for reconciliation. Which means you can lose four more. I don't think there's any reason to think that Baucus or Conrad would oppose reconciliation. Both have expressed support for the idea. I'm not sure who the next people to worry about are.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

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

Feingold has the same opinion as Byrd, but he'll never be held to the same standard as the other conservative Dems. Feingold's voting record this session is about the same as Bayh's and Lincoln's but he's still considered to be a progressive hero by people who don't pay attention to anything other than words.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:41 PM    in reply to clonecone

I'll say this right now: If Feingold opposes HCR reconciliation he is dead to me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:30 PM    in reply to CT Voter

Hey everyone,

Here's something to do if you're frustrated. Call the DSCC
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
Phone (202) 224-2447

and tell them you won't contribute any money if it is used to support a Democratic Senator who is holding up passage of the healthcare bill.

Name names (like Lincoln).

I just did it, and I feel much better.

Cheers!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:32 PM    in reply to mrut

It DID feel good.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:39 PM   

three brillant responses from semi-retro Senate Dems who love to try and feel significant when in reality they are flies on a horse's ass!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:39 PM   

I actually won't mind if the Dems lose these three clowns. They're almost as obstructionist as the Republicans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:41 PM    in reply to tonigo

I think they are, in fact, more obstructionist, particularly Lincoln and Nelson, because Dems have to spend so much energy and time on trying to get their miserable support. If they were Republicans, they wouldn't have to bother.

Actually, they shouldn't have to bother, but they probably still would, as the long courtship of President Snowe suggests.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:22 PM    in reply to CT Voter

Don't underestimate the bounty of BS that is Evan Bayh. In addition to being a weasel on Bush's efforts to privatize Social Security, he has done exactly two things for building Democratic Party infrastructure in Indiana: "Jack" and "Shit". We have a very shallow bench of viable state-wide candidates, and I think he likes it that way.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 6:06 PM    in reply to DanF

You have nailed the situation with Bayh precisely. What a tool.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:49 PM    in reply to tonigo

They really should be kicked out if the Democratic Party still has a purpose. They are completely useless in practice, and actually hurts the "brand".

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:09 PM    in reply to tonigo

Amen. Not a dime's worth of difference...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:39 PM   

Lincoln, Bayh, Nelson Won't Support Passing Health Care Fixes Via Reconciliation

I am shocked, SHOCKED, by this news.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:40 PM   

Isn't this the FUCKING POINT of using reconciliation?!? just wondering...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:42 PM    in reply to Jim H

Yup.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:42 PM   

Who else would be added to this list? Landrieu, Lieberman, Ben Nelson for sure.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:42 PM   

OK. This is the point where Obama finally says FUCK YOU to the Conservadems and Harry Reid strips them of their chairs. Right?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:03 PM    in reply to wbgonne

Right?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:32 PM    in reply to wbgonne

crickets...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:55 PM    in reply to wbgonne

Bueller?...Bueller?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:31 PM    in reply to wbgonne

Thanks for the laugh.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:41 PM    in reply to wbgonne

Just as soon as he gets his brilliant spending freeze in a recession initiative underway, course correcting from his big push to the left.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:43 PM   

Sorry, I meant Bill Nelson

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:43 PM   

News flash: the gang of three doesn't enjoy being irrelevant. In other big news, dog bites man.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:50 PM    in reply to Steve LaBonne

Thanks for the laugh!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:55 PM    in reply to Steve LaBonne

Dogs are usually put down when they bite...even blue ones.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:47 PM   

Lincoln is desperate. She's going to lose big in Arkansas anyways, as is Nelson in Nebraska. Bayh probably cut some faustian pact with Pence, and Lieberman will deal with anyone to stick to his seat. Hope they all get booted out.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:47 PM   

This handful of whores personify what is wrong with the Democratic Party. Primary all of them! Good riddance!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:49 PM    in reply to oleeb

Handful of whores. I like it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:57 PM    in reply to wbgonne

I can't wait to see these people, unwilling to vote for the recon bill, to be attacked in this thread with the same venom used against House liberals.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:00 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

. . . still waiting.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:33 PM    in reply to wbgonne

And...still waiting.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:34 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

Really won't happen.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:57 PM    in reply to oleeb

We few, we happy few, we band of whores...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 7:18 PM    in reply to Steve LaBonne

nice!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:48 PM   

So what?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:49 PM   

"We need to focus on things where we have a consensus," Bayh said." Just ramming through a bill on a purely party-line vote on a strictly partisan basis will not do much to generate the kind of progress around here on other issues that we need."

Oh, Evan Bayh, you make me regret the valuable keystrokes I waste occasionally defending you here.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 6:08 PM    in reply to IndyLinda

I'm done defending that tool. He has no conception of what "majority rules" means.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 27, 2010 1:39 AM    in reply to IndyLinda

You know Evan, I think it will. Oh yes, I think it will.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:51 PM   

This is as newsworthy as an article stating that Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is going to oppose Cap and Trade!

Nelson should be keeping his mouth shut about this given that it will play like he's trying to protect his pay-off.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

LAB

user-pic

January 26, 2010 2:51 PM   

You know McCaskill won't support it. Who else do we think is a no? It's getting close to 9.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:54 PM    in reply to LAB

Don't put McCaskill in this list without more explanation than you've given.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

ns

user-pic

January 26, 2010 2:51 PM   

Count them out? Okay. Let's count them out. For good.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:54 PM   

Except for Lieberman, who can go hang, I could care less if the most conservative Democratic Senators voted no on the reconciliation bill. In fact, I'd be disappointed if more of them didn't, as long as we get 50 votes plus Biden. If they think they're going to influence a single voter with that kind of nuance, let 'em try.

The Civil Rights Act passed with nothing to spare. The 19th Amendment came down to one guy in one house of the Tennessee legislature. Five minutes after it passes no one will care what the margin was.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:23 PM    in reply to semiotix

But Democrats should still care about party discipline. Kick these hos out and let the Republicans have them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:46 PM    in reply to semiotix

50+ Biden is not guaranteed.

Conrad may be out, especially after seeing what happened to Dorgan.
Bill Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Claire McCaskill could be out too.
Don't forget Pryor, the other Arkansas Dem, either.

That puts the Dems at 51 before even factoring Lieberman or the Montana senators.


Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:36 PM    in reply to jdb316

You know Lieberman is a no. He is an out of the closet traitor; he will only vote yes if the Democratic base wants him to vote no.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

slb

user-pic

January 27, 2010 2:12 PM    in reply to Darrius

Hey, maybe we should start a campaign to convince Lieberman that liberals think it would be a good idea to vote against any reconciliation bill on health care.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:54 PM   

Anybody could have predicted that. They wouldn't have been there in the end.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:54 PM   

The progressive base of the Democratic party needs to become has hardlined as the conservative pawns are becoming on the right. For the past generation and a half, Democrats have ignored their base with such disregard that there is no fear of electoral repercussions. This is evidence by the behavior of the administration prior to the health care reform debates. The "public option" was never even on the table much less "single payer'. "Don't ask don't tell" could easily be repealed with an executive order. Escalating the fake "war on terror" by sending more troops to Afghanistan. Still putting wall street before main street.

The effect of all this is the glacial pace of any real change in our government. 30 years of conservative hegemony with a few years of limited reversal of that course. What is there to show for it? In the ranking of nations, other than tv's and guns per capita the US is not at the top of any list that is a positive benefit for its population;education, health, manufacturing, nothing.
Yet here we are as a nation, like a dog chasing its' tail, concerned about 'terrorism'. I said that because it is the far-right wing of this nation that is so concerned with catching and defeating the far-right wing of some foreign nation.

The shrinking middle class is happening because we the people have allowed ourselves to become part of this corporate serfdom. We watch our 24 hour news filled with advertisements to keep us drugged and buying. The 'news' is just a sideshow for the commercials. When a news anchor challenges a politician for lying it becomes "newsworthy" why? Because the norm is to allow it to happen.

Need further proof of the blurring of lines between news media, politics and commercialism? Look at not only the signing of Sarah Palin to Fox news but also how Ed Shultz was courted to run as a Democrat.

Is it really any wonder, the greatest American export of our times are blockbuster movies and video games. We sell fantasy to the world and do it well, so well, that we believe our own fantasies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:55 PM    in reply to Ironcomments

Dukakis 2012!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:56 PM    in reply to Ironcomments

The progressive base of the Democratic Party is NO WHERE NEAR as large as the conservative base of the Republican Party, which is why they can, and occasionally have to, be ignored.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:03 PM    in reply to dtOZONE

Like on the public option. Which was a critical component of real HCR and polled at 60% even when Obama spit on it. Yeah, stupid progressives. Fuck em!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:51 PM    in reply to wbgonne

That 60% support was soft as hell. No objection, more like it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:56 PM   

Fine. Strip them of their committee memberships, and any other perks beyond what they are strictly entitled to from their Constitutional job description, and provide no money for their re-election.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:34 PM    in reply to Zell

You said it, Zell! They give nothing they get nothing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 2:57 PM   

this is news?!!!

anyone surprised?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:00 PM   

"I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat." -Will Rogers.


Throughout the history of the Democratic party(Progressives) in the 20th century it has fallen to you to be the enactors of real societal change. From the introduction of the 19th amendment to the creation of social security, G.I. Bill, civil rights act, voting rights act, and medicare, these are all pieces of legislation that the American citizenry living today cannot truly fathom of the time of not having them. These items reinforce the reciprocity of government and its people, creating a “more perfect union”.

Today, citizens may fight for their nation and come home knowing that they can afford to continue their education. Today, citizens after spending their entire adult working lives paying into the government system that if their retirement funds suddenly evaporate in some Wall street Ponzi scheme there will still be some form of income provided by social security. Today, because of medicare, an elderly citizen can at least get the health care they need. Today, we as a nation can finally say that opportunity is truly available to all and every citizen has the right to effectuate their government regardless of sex or race.

The time has come again for Democrats (Progressives) to be the steadying hand to the invisible hand. It is neither mere accident nor divine providence that the legislative items mentioned above; all came about after a long uninterrupted term of conservative hegemony. It is the realignment of democratic principles with economic and social realities. History has taught us that those who heed the cry “socialism” in these times of change in our nation are regarded as persons with limited foresight by the generations to come. Those that were against the voting rights of 1965 could not imagine a day like November 4th 2008.

So the time has fallen unto us to establish once and for all, a citizen’s right to health care- a human right; if it were not a human right, than man should be considered no more than a pack of rapacious narcissistic jackals motivated by the hunger for profit. Capitalism does not stipulate that government can not be an equal player in the market place. Is it not competition that drives capitalism and innovation? Citizens have more choice in shipping companies to include the United States Post Office, than they have in how to pay for health care. How is that big insurance will not be able to stay competitive if they are truly providing a better service to the people than government?

Democrats(Progessives) be moved by your conscience and ideals, not by your ego and benefactors.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:00 PM   

Each of these whores should be trashed by other Dems, particularly the House Dems for screwing up this bill with their conservadem wished in tact. No public option, less savings to to the government and a preference for taxing the middle class as opposed to the rich. The non-whorish Dems would have public support against these leeches and the Republicans. A "Whose side are you on" campaign headed by Plouffe to paint them as the obstructionist who used the Dems win for their own political and financial gain. It's a win win!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:00 PM   

Yeah! God forbid people in a democracy pass legislation by a majority vote!

Bipartisanship is a wonderful idea, but you don't try to reach a "bipartisan consensus" with somebody who has just broken into your house and taken a shit on the dinner table; it takes two to dance that particular tango. Well, if you're a normal person anyway. For Republicans, the phrase means "whatever Republicans want plus a bonus reacharound" - and apparently that definition is catching on with Blue Dogs as well.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:03 PM   

How is it the Senate Dems have the nutz to bypass Sanders and Boxer on Benanke but can't bypass Lieberman, Lincoln, Nelson & Bayh on HCR?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

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

Well, you know why, don't you?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:09 PM   

ALL THE KLANSMEN AND ALL THE KLANSWOMEN.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:11 PM   

If we had a real leader in the Senate, we might be considering what punishments they are going to get for not voting with the Democratic majority.

But we certainly wouldn't want to ruffle any feathers, its all a nice big cozy club after all.

What's that? another 2,000 people died today for lacking insurance? Bah, they were just poor people anyway.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:12 PM   

In a comparison likely to offend both parties, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly compared the South Side of Chicago to Haiti during a January 23rd stop on his "Bold Fresh Tour," accompanied by Glenn Beck.

President Obama is constantly pushing government as the solution to every problem, O'Reilly argued, despite there being no evidence to support this idea:

And I'm going, I don't know how that's possible. If you've ever been to the South Side of Chicago, I mean, it's a disaster. Alright? It's like Haiti. it's like -- I've been to Haiti a couple times, and I support some charities there, but Haiti just never gets better no matter how much money you put in there because they don't have a system.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:31 PM    in reply to dem4life

O'Reilly's EXISTENCE is offensive.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:12 PM   

The Go F_k urself bunch can Go F_k urselves!
Judgement days coming for you 3. Ill spend my days figuring out how to see to it that none of you have jobs after the election.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:14 PM   

And by the way, lest we forget the LIARman, WHY DOES THIS A$$CLOWN STILL HAVE A CHAIR POSITION?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:15 PM   

What pathetic excuses for elected officials. For shame.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:19 PM   

Are they serious? I actually chuckled.

Note to Conservadem jackals -- Bayh, Nelson, ... and I know you're in there Lieberman:

****We never expected your vote to be among the 50.****

Reconciliation is being used specifically because you are all unreliable backstabbers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:21 PM   

The gutless few. Who cares, they aren't Democrats anyway, and one isn't running again becuase she was a lousy senator in the first places. you have 51 votes with Biden, screw em.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:23 PM   

Maybe this will help the House Dems understand that they have no choice but to pass the Senate bill without conditions. Which was also the case a month ago.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:25 PM    in reply to Skybolt

HARDY HAR HAR!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

bw

user-pic

January 26, 2010 3:25 PM   

I cannot stress enough, just how important it is that these Senators don’t win re-election. The Democratic Party will never move forward if we keep electing the same old politicians that keep voting against their own party.
I am asking all the viewers of this post to help see that the following Senators are voted out of office on their next election. The way we do this, is by spreading the word through viewer comments on posts throughout the internet on news sites and blogs. Keep posting their names and date when their up for re-election. We can do this so please help. We can’t keep re-electing the same people over and over again and expect a different result.
1. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas in 2010
2. Evan Bayh of Indiana in 2010
3. Ben Nelson of Nebraska in 2012
4. Kent Conrad of North Dakota in 2012
5. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut in 2012
6. Bill Nelson of Florida in 2012
7. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana in 2014
8. Max Baucus of Montana in 2014
These Senators more than any other have consistently voted against their own party and with the Republicans on legislation going through the Senate. These Senators are the main reason Health Care Reform turned into such a bad bill no one in their right mind could support it. These Senators with the help of Republicans water down, added amendments and stretched out and stalled the Health bill in order for it to fail.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 5:08 PM    in reply to bw

Our problem with wanting these Senators to lose when reelection comes up is do we have a viable candidate to challenge them for the nomination, and can that candidate hold the seat against what is certain to be a vicious Republican assault? Just getting rid of an unsatisfactory office holder is not enough if the winner is likely to come from the opposing party. Isn't that biting off your nose to spite your face?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 5:34 PM    in reply to acf_ma

Yes it is stupid to just give the republicans another vote. If a Democrat votes with the party MOST of the time it is better than having a republican NEVER vote to pass anything. The problem with these senators is just that the people they represent in those small redneck states are so GOD DAMNED STUPID! America is a bunch of fat rednecks watching sports and drinking beer. That is why the Bush boy was in a position to steal the presidency. People are stupid.

PS~

I am amazed that people use their highschool social logic to pass judgement on these matters of life and death. You all sound like the girls who didn't make the cheerleading squad. Bitter little girls.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 7:32 PM    in reply to bw

I mean, you can't really blame Lieberman, now, can you? Afterall, Obama came into HIS state and campaigned with Lamont against him. Of course he's going to want some revenge. Oh wait. (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/04/02/164/90446)

Was that one of those classic Obama-ultra-zen-12-dimensional-chessmaster-ju-jitsu-jedi moves that none of us can figure out because he's sooooo much smarter than us?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 10:43 PM    in reply to bw

I cannot stress enough, just how important it is that these Senators don’t win re-election. The Democratic Party will never move forward if we keep electing the same old politicians that keep voting against their own party. I am asking all the viewers of this post to help see that the following Senators are voted out of office on their next election. The way we do this, is by spreading the word through viewer comments on posts throughout the internet on news sites and blogs. Keep posting their names and date when their up for re-election. We can do this so please help. We can’t keep re-electing the same people over and over again and expect a different result. 1. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas in 2010 2. Evan Bayh of Indiana in 2010 3. Ben Nelson of Nebraska in 2012 4. Kent Conrad of North Dakota in 2012 5. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut in 2012 6. Bill Nelson of Florida in 2012 7. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana in 2014 8. Max Baucus of Montana in 2014 These Senators more than any other have consistently voted against their own party and with the Republicans on legislation going through the Senate. These Senators are the main reason Health Care Reform turned into such a bad bill no one in their right mind could support it. These Senators with the help of Republicans water down, added amendments and stretched out and stalled the Health bill in order for it to fail.

Lieberman probably won't run again in 2012 anyway (he'd never get the GOP nomination anyway because of his views on abortion and other social issues).

As for the other seven in your list, if you get rid of them, a Republican will promptly claim those seats and (with the possible exception of Bill Nelson in Florida) the Democrats will never win them back.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:27 PM   

It's clear in retrospect that reports that Bayh was Obama's second choice for vice president should have set off all kinds of alarm bells. I chose to ignore this for a long time, but unfortunately a clearer and much darker picture is emerging.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:27 PM   

So does this make the progressives in the House more likely to vote for the senate bill and then amend during reconciliation, knowing that that these conservadem senators are out?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:28 PM   

Folks - this is a feature, not a bug. These guys desperately want to say that they cast a "no" vote on health care - isn't this precisely the vehicle which is required? Dems get health care, they get to defend themselves for re-election by saying that they drew the line somewhere.

And lest some say that the defectors will aid the GOP cause (e.g. "even some Democrats thought...," Dems can push back by saying that all of these Dems voted for the underlying concept, they just had some concerns on the margin.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:32 PM    in reply to jcsnotes

They already voted for it, so they are screwed. Or, do you think their Republican opponents will allow that to be forgotten.

Democrats are so stupid it's astounding.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:40 PM    in reply to DA in LA

Yeah, this cracks me up. Democrats are convinced that if they just camouflage their policies they can sneak them through without anybody noticing. Not understanding, first, that it doesn't work and, second, that by doing so they lose the war even if they win the battle.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

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

This piece of shit "Senator" Lincoln will lose by a huge margin regardless of her stupid ass vote in November, and I for one will shed not a tear for it. I am just as happy having 50+Sanders real Dems as I am having the 57+Sanders ones we have now (Lieberman is not been a Dem since '06 in fact or in practicality).

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:30 PM   

Who cares what she thinks or says? With reconciliation we only need 51 votes and they already passed the Senate bill on their side of the hill, which the House can vote on and then it doesn't matter what this piece of shit douche-bag "Senator", who will be out of office and on her ass after November feels about anything.

Fuck her and Nelson.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

ibc

user-pic

January 26, 2010 3:36 PM   

Oh, okay, that's cool.

Can we kick Bayh, Lincoln, et al in the pants, give them an atomic wedgie, stick their heads in a toilet, and then go ahead and pass the damned HCR now?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:42 PM    in reply to ibc

OK. But first the atomic wedgies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:37 PM   

Adieu, Landrieu. Bye, Bayh.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:43 PM   

What's interesting, imho, is that they're coming out with statements. Together. After a long silence.

That suggests to me that leadership may already have the votes lined up, and may be releasing people they don't absolutely need.

Admittedly, I tend to be an optimist ...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:05 PM    in reply to Alex39

I hope you're right.

I really don't see what these jokers feel they have to gain by voting for the bill out of the Senate and opposing the reconciliation. Their electorates won't care; their opponents will hang the "horrors" of healthcare reform on them, anyway.

Please, someone, tell me what kind of argument a Lincoln or a Nelson takes out of this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:43 PM   

50 + VP-Biden is all we need.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:45 PM   

I am not seeing why we need a Democratic majority in Congress. I mean, what does it do for us?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:46 PM   

Not to mention that Obama and the White House do not want reconciliation. The spending freeze shows that Obama is going to be a centrist president for at least the near future.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:52 PM    in reply to jim43

When did Obama say he did not want reconciliation...or are you making shit up again?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 3:50 PM   

Lieberman,Landrieu and Webb are probably out too. I have no confidence in Baucus either. House Progressives are right not to trust Senate Dems.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:18 PM   

..you mean these "Democratic" obstructionists along with their buddies on the right would be irrelevant...? Too F**king Bad...! We don't need them and they will soon (not soon enough!) be gone...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 7:06 PM   

"I am opposed to and will fight against any attempts ... allow the Senate to pass a package of changes to our original bill with 51 votes,"

Isn't it normal that bills pass with 51 votes? That is, after all, a majority.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:20 PM   

I am waiting for Birch Bayh to disown his son. What an embarrassment.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 11:20 PM   

so we don't have Nelson, Lincoln, Bayh, Begich, Landrieu, McCaskill, Lieberman and Pryor.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on