Pelosi: There Aren't Enough Votes To Pass The Senate Bill

I have a different plan. As a Democrat for the last 70 years, I have worked my ass off at the town, county, state and national level. I've tried to be as generous with my contributions as I could be. It is in my blood. But this Obama fellow stinks. He hasn't done diddle squat for the party or the country. Failure! I worked for him, voted for him and teared up at the inauguration. But this HCR thing has me so upset (at the Democrats & our do-nothing President) that I'm checking out before my blood pressure has me really Checking Out. My wife and I, the kids and their families are all pretty well off. We're all 'free, white and twenty one' as the old WASP slogan used to be told. We gather at Christmas and Memorial Day for picnics, we have all the health insurance we need. We have nothing holding us back from being Bush Republicans, except our loyalties to the poor, the uninsured, people who need work and those that are prayed for as being "less fortunate than ourselves." Mitch McConnel won today two ways, in Court and at the polls. Obama doesn't give a damn, he's feathering his nest from trial lawyers and pharma companies. Traitor Joe is ready to become a big shot in Hartford. The bad guys are winning everything - so with nothing to loose and everything to gain and the Democrats not giving a damn from top to bottom - hell, I'm just gonna sit the whole thing out for the few years I have left. My wife says I can't do it, but I'm gonna try. 'Course, I gotta stop reading Josh and Andrew, but that's a small price to pay. The Democratic party has had the last banner waving, money and dedication outta me. Been thinking about this for a few weeks now. Soon as I sign off, I delete Josh from my bookmarks and cancel my membership in Move-On.org. If the folks who need this stuff don't wanna vote for it, who am I to speak for them? Hell, let 'em eat cake!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Odel Roo

January 22, 2010 8:58 AM in reply to suydam@yahoo.com

That is an amazing post. Just amazing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

CT Voter

January 21, 2010 11:42 AM

It took both chambers of Congress nearly a year to get to this point, and now they're apparently going to start over?

It is pathological.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

FreeRider

January 21, 2010 11:51 AM in reply to CT Voter

It would be pathological to start over. Folks are tired of this. They can't waste another 2-3 months on this crap.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

expat46

January 21, 2010 11:56 AM in reply to FreeRider

Agreed. The longer this goes on the worse it will be in November. The folks that elected Scott Brown are pissed off at Wall Street and yet it's business as usual with nothing being done to reign them in.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

felix

January 21, 2010 11:42 AM

OK, it's over.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Kristin126

January 21, 2010 11:43 AM

Do they not realize--they have *got to pass something*.
If they don't, the republicans will seize on this meme--the Democrats can't get anything done, can't govern--so elect us.
And the people will buy into it.
There was enough ill will among the electorate against republicans in 2008 to keep them wandering in the wilderness for a decade, at least.
We managed to screw it up in less than two years.
Way to go.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Steve LaBonne

January 21, 2010 11:51 AM in reply to Kristin126

Why yes, they do realize they have to pass something, that's why Speaker Pelosi just said in that statement that they have to pass something. Try to control your jones for the crappy Senate bill, which ain't coming back, and await developments.

The real mystery her is the massive swoon of the Village Democrats over an unpopular and unworkable bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

again

January 21, 2010 11:56 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne

agreed

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

hewhohasnoname

January 21, 2010 12:00 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

Which developments should we wait for? This healthcare bill could have and should have been completed in August of last year, as Obama called for.

In an election year, things are only more difficult, because the normally skittish Democrats become even more cowardly; they're not going to move on this anytime soon. Additionally, that will lead to further disillusionment among the Democratic base and general electorate, which will lead to the loss of more Democratic seats. Obviously, fewer Democratic seats make the "math" on passing a bill even more difficult. [And if disillusionment is substantial enough, you could potentially kiss the majorities in one or both Houses good-bye.]

I don't think it's an over-reaction to say that healthcare reform is dead. And again, Democrats -- not Republicans -- have killed it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Steve LaBonne

January 21, 2010 12:06 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname

Yes, attempts to comprehensively overhaul the system are dead- this clusterfuck has proved that it's not yet politically possible to do that in an effective way without it getting perverted by corporate power the way the Venetians perverted the 4th Crusade. They will come up with something extremely modest that they can call "health care reform"- again, my suggestion being Medicare buyin from age 50 or 55, but I'm sure there are other possibilities that will be floated- that can pass via reconciliation, and call it a day. And that is politically BY FAR the wisest course. The Senate bill is politically toxic, and nobody really believes that the Senate will actually fulfill its side of the "plan B" bargain. Those in thrall to Village-think are just going to have to get over their strange infatuation with the Senate bill, because it's dead, dead, dead.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

hewhohasnoname

January 21, 2010 12:14 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

That "modest" change will probably exclude universal coverage.

I don't get how progressives can think that the Senate bill is "toxic" and worth killing, but be in favor of pursuing "reform" in a piecemeal fashion that excludes universal coverage.

No matter how "toxic" one thinks the Senate bill is, it would at least provide a universal coverage foundation to build up on in the future. Now, it doesn't look like that will be achieved.

And people are seriously okay with that??

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Steve LaBonne

January 21, 2010 12:25 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname

The Senate bill doesn't achieve universal coverage. And its gains would probably not have been sustainable since it did practically nothing on cost inflation. Some of you have really bought into a bill of goods. In reality, this thing has been a clusterfuck in the making ever since Obama gave Max Baucus his testicles for safekeeping.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

hewhohasnoname

January 21, 2010 12:41 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

You're right. I was inexact. But, it's nearly universal coverage. It would cover 94% of Americans.

And, yeah, you're right... Some of us aren't as "enlightened" as you are; I absolutely "bought the bill of goods"... Silly me for thinking that covering 31 million people is a good thing. Silly me for thinking that passing a bill that will save hundreds of thousands of lives is a good thing. Silly me for thinking that passing a bill that will reduce the overall costs for consumers is a good thing. Silly me for thinking that creating an insurance exchange will benefit consumers.

And, silly me for thinking that ANY bill that passes through Congress will be imperfect...

I should have known that any bill passed through Congress will be perfect and the final say on an issue. I mean, that's how it's always been in the past.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

working4aliving

January 21, 2010 3:10 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname

It is really hard to understand they way so many dems just blindly follow their party elite. They used to complain that 30 million uninsured Americans was a travesty and could not be tolerated. Now they practically have organisms when they are told the bill will cover 94% of the population. Well let’s see, since dems can’t do math – 380 million * 6% not covered is: 23 million – an expansion of less than 2% (92% covered to 94% coverage). WOW, and of those newly insured 7 million, how many of them are young people who chose not to buy insurance that would now be forced to buy against their will? Freedom to choose must not be very important to them.
Also, this is special interest driven legislation. Howard Dean said it is a give away to the insurance companies – I agree with him on that point. How can a true dem or liberal justify this which is no better than the Bush prescription drug coverage corporate give away.
Why can’t they just put aside their pretentiousness and anger and work out a compromise that would help everyone. Start with some things that can be agreed upon. Dems can have the elimination of pre-existing conditions and bar insurance companies from dropping people who become sick. In return, give Repubs tort reform and allow insurance to be sold across state lines breaking up monopolies. Maybe they can agree on some type of tax credit for the uninsured that cannot afford it. Work with Repubs and set aside your blind, bankrupt, ideology. Doing this will save your hold on power. Continuing this path of neo monarchism will surly fail.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

dem4life

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

If it's not universal then forget it.

1 year, enough with universal hlth care.

JOBS! BABY JOBS!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

January 21, 2010 12:26 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname

forcing people to buy insurance is not universal coverage.

Remember Obama's line, back when he acted like a progressive, it's like mandating homeless people buy a house to solve homelessness

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

jsdc007

January 21, 2010 12:48 PM in reply to Indie Pro

Individual mandates worked in Massachusetts.

Nearly 98% of its residents are covered. If you don't buy coverage, you pay a tax penalty.

If we had a public option, we'd end up paying more in taxes, so its six of one, half dozen of the other.

Sometimes the left just baffles me. We shoot ourselves in the foot in the belief that this will spite our opponents.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

January 21, 2010 12:52 PM in reply to jsdc007

20% of people in Mass have insurance but can't afford to use it.

Mass has the most expensive insurance in the country, but wages have kept pace with the rising costs, that won't happen around the country as overall wages have been stagnant for decades

etc

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

El Puerco

January 21, 2010 1:15 PM in reply to Indie Pro

As Ezra Klein pointed out, Mass had the most expensive health insurance BEFORE it passed its health care reform law. Since then, Mass rates have grown more slowly than the rest of the country. Moreover, people in Mass approve of their plan by overwhelming numbers (70-80%). The idea that a piecemeal, non-universal,bill will be better is just absurd.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

January 21, 2010 1:21 PM in reply to El Puerco

I get my info from kaiser's studies.

Ezra Klein is an establishment dem. He's a my party right or wrong type. I am not impressed with Ezra Klein.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

dem4life

January 21, 2010 1:38 PM in reply to Indie Pro

better use it or your tax return is going to take a hit.

Thanks Mitt Romney for sticking us before your piggiesh arse left town

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

dem4life

January 21, 2010 2:15 PM in reply to Indie Pro

This won't work out in SC I think their hrly wage is $2

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

January 21, 2010 12:54 PM in reply to jsdc007

If we had a public option, we'd end up paying more in taxes, so its six of one, half dozen of the other.

and this is stupid.

subsidies to insurance companies will cuase our taxes to go up

especially when there is no regulation to control the price of premiums

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Economides

January 21, 2010 1:00 PM in reply to Indie Pro

Mandating people buy insurance is what makes guaranteed issue possible, otherwise private insurance will continue to be all about avoiding adverse selection.

Subsidies are what make it universal or near universal.

That actual democrats don't get that the human cost of not guaranteeing chronically ill people access to health insurance vastly outweighs the financial interest of unionized workers who already enjoy far better access to health care, pensions and decent wages than the average worker is beyond me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

January 21, 2010 1:04 PM in reply to Economides

that you fail to acknowledge the actual loopholes in the senate bill is, well, what I've come to expect

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

El Puerco

January 21, 2010 1:17 PM in reply to Indie Pro

Please enumerate these.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

January 21, 2010 1:22 PM in reply to El Puerco

look in the other threads, we've been doing this all along.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

dem4life

January 21, 2010 1:28 PM in reply to Indie Pro

Yea, penalized on taxes last year because both me & my husband were laid off.

THANKS REPUBLIPIG MITT ROMNEY......THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE BEFORE DEVAL PATRICK TOOK OFFICE .....FYI to all that have facts incorrect.

THANKS MA for just electing MITT JR.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

This is Hilarious!

January 21, 2010 2:44 PM in reply to dem4life

You're welcome. And for our next trick we will elect Mitt SR to the white house after this pathetic president gets kicked to the curb in three years.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

dem4life

January 22, 2010 9:13 AM in reply to This is Hilarious!

SOLUTION: OUR FOUNDING FATHERS...TURN IT OVER TO DEM

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

This is Hilarious!

January 22, 2010 11:43 AM in reply to dem4life

I think you need to check your history. Here is one of our founding fathers:

"The essence of a free government consists in an effectual control of rivalries." - John Adams

Even back then he undertood that we need to take a centrist approach. That is something the progressives need to finally accept if they ever wish to be taken seriously.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

kenga

January 21, 2010 4:12 PM in reply to Indie Pro

It's not PROVIDING universal coverage, no.
But if everyone is covered - it does not matter how they became covered, what it cost, or what they were threatened with - it is in fact universal coverage.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

El Puerco

January 21, 2010 1:09 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

If you don't trust the Senate to fulfill its part of the Plan B (i.e., reforming the Cadillac tax through reconciliation), why do you trust the Senate to fulfill Plan X (i.e., passing a medicare buy-in through reconciliation)?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

masanf

January 21, 2010 1:14 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname

Lead to more disillusionment among the general electorate? You meant the electorate that has been telling everyone that will listen that they don't want this bill? Putting the term "general electorate" in the sentence with "Democratic base" is a delusion of grandeur that would make Han Solo proud.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

hewhohasnoname

January 21, 2010 1:29 PM in reply to masanf

Perhaps, you should take time to read the internals on some of those polls of the electorate and spend less time on pithy nonsensical responses.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

rbe1

January 21, 2010 4:28 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname

I think it's fair to say that the fucking blue dog democrats killed it and in so doing, managed to fuck the little people where the sun don't shine. Way to go blue dogs ! Rot in hell.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

January 21, 2010 12:01 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

The real mystery here is the massive swoon of the Village Democrats over an unpopular and unworkable bill.

they think if they pass the Senate Bill all of sudden things will be better in 2010. Which makes them tone deaf to people's attitude on the Senate bill.

Scared and tired, and just want to win an election. They care nothing about the actual reform.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

hewhohasnoname

January 21, 2010 12:08 PM in reply to Indie Pro

Do people really not understand how wasting nearly a year on healthcare reform and ending up with nothing to show for it is going to be a huge liability going into 2010 elections?

When you add in the notion that the public thinks that Congress could have spent more time addressing economic issues that immediately affect their station, Democrats are essentially asking for a drubbing.

Not only will Democrats have to have to guard against disillusionment among the base, they will have to guard against anger from people think (rightly) that they're incompetent.

I didn't think the Democratic majorities were really in play in 2010. Now, I think they are. They will lose one or both Houses without a healthcare bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Steve LaBonne

January 21, 2010 12:13 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname

That's why they won't end up with "nothing". They just won't end up with a caricature of comprehensive "reform", but rather with something very minimal that can nevertheless appeal to voters as providing some help right away. And that's a GOOD thing. We need to move on instead of bleedint to death under the walls of this Verdun of a bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

hewhohasnoname

January 21, 2010 12:16 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

Please read my above comment about universal coverage. It will likely be gutted from any bill/s pieced together.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

FreeRider

January 21, 2010 12:16 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

You can't ban excluding people with pre-existing conditions and ban the practice of rescission without a mandate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

January 21, 2010 12:21 PM in reply to FreeRider

yes you can.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Skybolt

January 21, 2010 12:33 PM in reply to Indie Pro

No, you can't, because it will make premiums much higher. If you force the insurance companies to cover sick and very sick people, and don't move healthier people into the pool at the same time, then those sick people are going to get gouged.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

January 21, 2010 12:43 PM in reply to Skybolt

vermont doesn't have a mandate

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Skybolt

January 21, 2010 12:55 PM in reply to Indie Pro

Vermont does have an employer mandate, and their program explicitly does not cover everyone. Not much of a goal to shoot for. It also relies on federal money. There is no option for the United States to get money from an outside source. Well, maybe China could put of a few bucks.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

January 21, 2010 1:02 PM in reply to Skybolt

so you agree that they don't have an individual mandate

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Skybolt

January 21, 2010 1:17 PM in reply to Indie Pro

Well, it's not really a matter of me agreeing, it's a simple fact. But you can make the exact same arguments against an employer mandate that you do against an individual mandate. Businesses are forced to pay in, and the money they spend on that comes out of the paychecks of their employees.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

dem4life

January 21, 2010 1:53 PM in reply to Indie Pro

good for them......should not be one imposed on anyone.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Official A

January 21, 2010 12:57 PM in reply to Skybolt

A layman's response:

This argument that preexisting conditions can't be insured makes no sense to me. People buy life insurance all the time and insurers can't just cancel a policy when the owner gets sick. This phenomenon makes policies marginally more expensive but because risk is spread out it doesn't make premiums exhorbitant. Health insurance portability (i.e., COBRA ad infinitem) would address this since the an ill individual could take insurance (though not the employer's contribution) with him into retirement, unemployment, or a new job. Subsidies might be required for some people, but the insurance companies and healthy insured can share the risk -- that's what insurance IS

Those who are currently ill ***and*** currently uninsured are a bigger problem, and that's why we have to have a public option of some description.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

January 21, 2010 1:12 PM in reply to Official A

Life insurance is a fundementally different product in how it's structured and how it works. It's not apples to apples, or even apples to turnips. It's apples to rocks.

The main difference is that health insurers basically spend 100% of each dollar they take in on benefits, administration and overhead or profits (if they're for profit). The more they take in, the less they have to charge each individual. If people are allowed to wait until they get sick to buy in, that means everyone's premiums have to go up to cover the cost of paying their benefits.

Life insurers, by contrast, are betting that they can make a profit investing your premium dollars in the market before you croak. If it's whole life, you get a vested interest in a piece of the equity they build up that increases as you get older. If it's term life, it's a straight bet that you won't die before the policy's term ends. And then if you want to reup, you have to pay a lot more to place the bet because you're older.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Rick

January 21, 2010 1:31 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Health insurers "spend" their money on "profits"?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

January 21, 2010 2:00 PM in reply to Rick

Yes. If they pay it out in the form of dividends, which all mutual companies do, it goes off their balance sheet and into the pocket of their shareholders. It's "spent" just as surely as if they used it to pay a salary or a provider or a lawyer.

As opposed to keeping it and investing it in the stock market, which is how life insurance works.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

dem4life

January 21, 2010 1:36 PM in reply to Indie Pro

a republipig.....indeed

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

January 21, 2010 12:24 PM in reply to hewhohasnoname

they should've made the stimulus bigger, as progressives and liberals said all along. But Conservative Dem leadership...

they should've been working on jobs and the economy all along, it isn't like they can only do one thing at a time. But Conservative Dem leadership...

It may take a month or two to get this done.

All along, progressives and liberals have made the bill better, being the only ones actually fighting to make it better. Conservatives have made it worse. Most of the provisions the liberals have fought for reduce the deficit, and regulate and actually move towards reform. Conservatives have undermined the reform. But by all means, everyone attack the liberals.

Most of the people in this thread saying pass it now, have been saying that all along, all year. They don't actually care whether it works or not, is good ro not. They only care about electing democrats.

I care about the legislation and how it actually works, not the election. This is about the bill, not 2010 for me. Sorry. When we discuss elections, I'll care about that.

IF there is disillusionment, it is due to a corporate giveaway bill from what was supposed to be an administration of change. If there is disillusionment, it is due to behind the scene deals with pharma and the insurnace industry and Obama to create the Senate Bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

For Want of a Nail

January 21, 2010 1:15 PM in reply to Indie Pro

God, I couldn't agree more.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

dem4life

January 21, 2010 1:30 PM in reply to Indie Pro

THE CONSERVATIVE DEMS SHOULD JOIN THE TEABAGGER MOVEMENT....THEY FITT IN, FREAKING BRAIN DEAD

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Leo

January 21, 2010 1:07 PM in reply to Indie Pro

If they pass the bill, they can move on, change the subject, and call it yesterday's news.

If they don't, it will continue to be an open wound -- a media story and a meme that will be impossible to kill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

January 21, 2010 1:09 PM in reply to Leo

thy can move on now. they have.

they can pass other legislation. they have.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Leo

January 21, 2010 1:17 PM in reply to Indie Pro

... leaving unfinished business isn't moving on. It's a gaping hole.

Every person who waved a pro-healthcare sign, half the audience of SiCKo, and everyone who has been denied coverage or is waiting for health insurance freedom will be filled with palpable rage at the impotence of the democratic party, because, with the strongest mandate THEY HAVE EVER F-ING HAD, they can't get their signature issue done.

"Fired up" ... for what? To defeat a war-monger? Is that it?

If the house doesn't pass the bill the Dems are toast in 2010, and Obama is toast in 2012, and a Palin-Beck ticket will turn the US into a fascist state.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

January 21, 2010 1:26 PM in reply to Leo

the dems will be toast in 2010 eitherway. That is how midterms work, traditionally.

The people who will be sitting home in 2010 are liberals and progressives at odds with an increasingly right of center administration that promised change, but in the end was a rehash of the DLC, or republican lite, or more conservative values. That shit has been hurting people for 30 years.

Anyone who is for HCR, or saw SICKO, should see that the Senate bill will do them no service, but instead, cement the position of a Privatized system, with tax dollars flowing tot hem unfettered by regualtion or anti-trust laws.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Leo

January 21, 2010 1:34 PM in reply to Indie Pro

... and then what? There will be a progressive revolution? Or are you just being spiteful?

What do you propose that will work? What's the right thing to do in the long term?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

January 21, 2010 1:55 PM in reply to Leo

and then what, what? What are you asking me? What does the current senate bill need? What is it lacking? You are unaware that people have had problems with the Senate bill?

You weren't hear for all the same people crying pass the bill in the senate, and then we can fix it in conference? That so what it is a mess and crap, it'll move to the left in conference. They are the same people here saying just pass it, and decrying liebrals for taking the same position we've taken all along as we've compromised all along. There should be no shock here. There should be no question of what is missing.

Rahm and other advisors have screwed Obama's agenda. They've stolen from him his Change brand by making him business as usualy.

You want to blame someone. Blame them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

lousgirl84

January 22, 2010 9:04 AM in reply to Leo

Indie Pro has no solutions or answers, just complaints. He is the voice of doom and gloom.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

allen bukoff

January 21, 2010 12:36 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

"The real mystery here is the massive swoon of the Village Democrats over an unpopular and unworkable bill."

It's a mystery to me, too. It's a further mystery how the Village Democrats and Obama and his team who failed to fight for real health care reform are now trying to position themselves as "the fighters" and the progressives who refuse to vote for this crap as being the weak sisters, lacking courage and fight. "Negotiating" (i.e., compromising) with the pharmaceutical industry, Nelson, Lieberman, and everyone else except the American people is NOT fighting.

Case in point of this attitude: Village Democrat Josh Marshall in his current post, "Pelosi pulls the plug," says "Would have been nice to know back in January they didn't have the fortitude for this."

Would have been nice to know back in Nov.09 that they (the Democratic leadership and establishment) didn't have the intention or the balls to deliver a real health care reform bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

January 21, 2010 12:42 PM in reply to allen bukoff

word!

co-sign!

and a serious high-five!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

For Want of a Nail

January 21, 2010 1:17 PM in reply to allen bukoff

More of this please.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Tanjaoui

January 21, 2010 7:14 PM in reply to For Want of a Nail

Nailed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

PaulC37943

January 21, 2010 12:55 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

Yea, I'll await further developments. In the meantime, all those requests for money I have from OFA and the DNC are going to remain in my in-box.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Rick

January 21, 2010 1:27 PM in reply to Kristin126

No, really, "we have to pass something" is a terrible idea. Any law that forces people to buy insurance that they don't want or cannot afford is going to be an unpopular one. Why so many people in DC don't comprehend this is beyond me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

roadmouth

January 21, 2010 1:30 PM in reply to Kristin126

Uh, you've had a super majority for nearly a year with a media corps humping Obama's leg. Newsflash - You can't get anything done - it's not a meme it's a fact-fact. BTW, Pelosi is a goner, as are her claims to "get this done".

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

alkali

January 21, 2010 11:43 AM

The greatest Democratic legislative victory in 40 years should be abandoned because of a few million dollars worth of extra Medicaid funding for Nebraska? For f**k's sake.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

plynch22

January 21, 2010 11:53 AM in reply to alkali

Liberal progressives brought us 8 years of W by voting for Nader, and now are determined to kill the first term of the most promising Democratic politician since JFK. All for some bullshit ideological purity test. And we thought the GOP was bad on that front.

Whatever House members are opposing this, prepare to live the rest of your life in political obscurity. You will never be trusted by voters again, because it is clear you are incapable of the most basic decision-making.

I don't give a fuck about GOP opposition. That has been a clear obstacle since the start. Get the fucking bill done and drop the self-righteousness. Do you really have such a poor read on the electorate? Accomplish what you can. Good god it took 20 years to get Medicare fully implemented. MOVE. FORWARD.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

For Want of a Nail

January 21, 2010 12:01 PM in reply to plynch22

We've already compromised on single-payer.
We've already compromised on the public option.
We've already compromised on the medicare buy-in.

How many times are you going to spit on us and still be surprised when we balk?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

DanF

January 21, 2010 12:14 PM in reply to For Want of a Nail

You do realize your statement is at odds with the spirit behind your moniker "For want of a nail"? When you are in battle, you need every resource you can get. The Senate Bill is what we can get. Let's take it, win the battle, and continue to fight to improve it. Hell - if for no other reason than getting the Democratic "leadership" used to the idea that we CAN pass big legislation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

For Want of a Nail

January 21, 2010 12:17 PM in reply to DanF

The nail was the public option, single-payer, or medicare buy-in. The loss of those made us lose the battle by making the bill unpalatable. My moniker is easily reinterpreted.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Leo

January 21, 2010 1:10 PM in reply to For Want of a Nail

Failure to pass the bill is political suicide for the Dems.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

For Want of a Nail

January 21, 2010 1:19 PM in reply to Leo

Fine with me. My allegiance is to an agenda, not a party. If the Democrats passed the senate bill I'd vote third party.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Leo

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

More spite. Take a deep breath. Go read the Tao Te Ching. And begin to be objective for a moment.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

tmc

January 21, 2010 12:02 PM in reply to plynch22

The progressive "movement" (of which until recently I considered myself a proud member of) has left the country in a lurch by demonstrating the old adage "the better is the enemy of the good."

Time to check out.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

FreeRider

January 21, 2010 12:11 PM in reply to tmc

I agree with you. I'm still a liberal but I find the Hamsher, Huffington crowd just as disgusting as the right wing. They are equally responsible for this catastrophe.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

lousgirl84

January 21, 2010 12:25 PM in reply to FreeRider

Again, I may sound like a broken record, but we are on the same page. I totally agree. Progressives are getting on my nerves right now. I understand their frustration but it's a cut your nose off to spite your face thing and I find it repulsive and stoopid.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

whitesauce

January 21, 2010 12:51 PM in reply to tmc

Really? This is the fault of progressives? Who's panicking now?

Progressives have been vindicated by what has happened in the last few days. This bill has been teetering for months because ConservaDems have controlled the debate. We've wasted months negotiating with Sens. Nelson, Conrad, Landrieu, Lieberman and Snowe -- all while polling suggested that people liked the public option. While you're pointing your finger at Progressives, take notice of the three pointing at yourself.

Personally, I think voting in some of this bill piece-by-piece, so the Republicans can vote for or against things like pre-existing conditions or recision, will be far more effective. The notion that we're now going to pass a bill that requires 30 million to purchase insurance is going to help the party in 2010 and 2012 is ridiculous.

"If the Democrats run for cover, if we become pale carbon copies of the opposition, we will lose, and deserve to lose." -Ted Kennedy

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

EastWest

January 21, 2010 12:08 PM in reply to plynch22

"[T]he most promising Democratic politician since JFK"? What drugs are you on?

If Obama had shown some actual leadership over the course of this discussion, HCR would be a done deal by now. What did he do instead? Never mind, that was a trick question. He didn't do anything.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

again

January 21, 2010 12:11 PM in reply to EastWest

Completely agreed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

TBender

January 21, 2010 12:15 PM in reply to EastWest

Sure, because Clinton proved that leading Congress on HCR was so successful.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

EastWest

January 21, 2010 12:25 PM in reply to TBender

One would have "hoped" that Obama had the sense to learn from past mistakes. Or is it your position that because Clinton failed, Obama should get a pass? Clinton tried. Obama yawned.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

El Puerco

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

By your standard, FDR was a loser because he did not pass univesal health insurance as part of Social Security, even though he initially wanted to; LBJ was a loser because he did not pass universal health insurance but only Medicare and Medicaid, even though he wanted to. It is also worth noting that it took Canada almost 40 years to get single-payer, since it was created province by province.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

EastWest

January 21, 2010 2:05 PM in reply to El Puerco

No. You've got it exactly backwards. If FDR and Johnson had acted like Obama we'd have neither Social Security nor Medicare.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

UHD

January 21, 2010 1:46 PM in reply to EastWest

None of the ConservaDems acted in good faith. None of them wanted to succeed. The only pols who really wanted HCR were and are the liberals ("progressives").

I guess, by extension, Obama planned to be a one term president. What other conclusion can we draw?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

dem4life

January 21, 2010 1:47 PM in reply to EastWest

i'll try and guess......Dick "TORTURE MAN" CHENEY

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Skybolt

January 21, 2010 12:36 PM in reply to alkali

Why do progressives oppose more money for Medicaid in Nebraska in the first place? They question should be, how do we get more money to help the poor everywhere? Not, how can we keep poor people in Nebraska from getting more help?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

zonk

January 21, 2010 3:22 PM in reply to Skybolt

It's beyond me.

Don't get me wrong - the deal for Landrieu was actually much more needed than Louisiana (LA, especially new orleans area was going be just killed by the charity care provisions existing Medicare) - and Nebraska was really no more (and probably less) needy for higher Med payments than the Dakotas, Montana, and other rural states (especially large, western, rural states).

But, you know... it's a lot easier to just point to PAC moneys and call someone a corporatist. less work.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

dem4life

January 21, 2010 2:11 PM in reply to alkali

Uck Southern Boy Ben Nelson

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

JohnMcCSF

January 21, 2010 11:44 AM

Yglesias

if Grijalva feels the need to take out some anger on the Senate, he should pass health care then go find a particularly annoying Senator and punch him in the face. Just—bam!—pop him....But snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by failing to take the most plausible path to universal health care doesn’t punish the Senate, it punishes the American people. This is no time for ego trips.

The self-annointed "Progressives" cannot govern

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

barbara63

January 21, 2010 11:54 AM in reply to JohnMcCSF

The progressives claim to be fighting for the little guy, but when it comes time to do something, they do nothing. Maybe they are really corporate-sponsored conservatives in disguise. They are voting the same way as Republicans on this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

JohnMcCSF

January 21, 2010 11:59 AM in reply to barbara63

Agreed except with the word "progressives"...See I don't buy their claim to the franchise

Maybe I should call myself leftist or liberal???

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

EastWest

January 21, 2010 12:12 PM in reply to barbara63

It wasn't progressives who made the Senate bill into the watered down piece of shit it is. It was weak leadership, kowtowing to Joe Lieberman and the ConservaDems. Do NOT hold progressives responsible for the failures of the self-described "moderates".

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

TBender

January 21, 2010 12:18 PM in reply to EastWest

Fine. I'll hold them responsible for not taking what they could get and then immediately begin improving it the next day.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

EastWest

January 21, 2010 12:31 PM in reply to TBender

By that reasoning, rape victims should be glad they just got a little sex.

This was completely predictable, but the arrogance and hubris of the so-called "leadership" got in the way of doing the job right. Now the people who failed are blaming everybody but themselves.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

zonk

January 21, 2010 4:55 PM in reply to EastWest

Jesus Hyperbole Christ.

Yeah... a bill that ends rescission, mandates minimum coverage, eliminates the current infinity caps on premiums, eliminates discriminatory practices for all but age (and caps that at 3 times as opposed to the current infinity times), eliminates the current infinity caps on out of pocket costs, requires an 80% floor for revenue-to-benefits ration, requires more, clearer disclosure to beneficiaries, requires regular reporting to the HHS (and lets the HHS adjust various mechanisms as warranted) --- to say nothing of closing the Part D donut hole, expanding Medicaid by a level unprecedented, and helps keep Medicare from going bankrupt in 8 years.

Yeah, that's the same thing as rape.

Every time I think the kill the bill banshees cannot say something any more asinine, someone finds a way to move the stupid ball further.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

JohnMcCSF

January 21, 2010 12:19 PM in reply to EastWest

Boy stop the presses

Alert the media...we didn't know that!

Not about the fragile egos of our so-called progressive leaders..it is about their political incompetence

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

EastWest

January 21, 2010 1:05 PM in reply to JohnMcCSF

The only incompetence is coming from the White House and from Pelosi and Reid.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

zonk

January 21, 2010 5:18 PM in reply to JohnMcCSF

Spot. On.

Purity Progressives: Accomplishing nothing but sounding really righteous doing it.

They ought to have T-shirts.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

January 21, 2010 11:44 AM

Repeating myself.

The simple truth is that the average politician isn't all that smart. No smarter, say, than the average junior vice president at a bank branch or a gaggle of realtors. It's like most organizations. When a hard decision has to be made, the few smart people figure out what has to be done and leap down the path that leads to the bleeding obvious in a single bound. Then, once they're there, they have sit and twiddle their thumbs while everyone else blunder their way through the fog that fills their heads and arrives at the same destination. You just have to let them get there on their own. If you try to rush them, they'll just fall down and stub their toes or dig in their heels in mulish obstinance and it will take even longer.

I'm sure most of you have seen it in your offices. Not a lot different in Congress.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

converse

January 21, 2010 11:55 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

The older I get, the more I am convinced that my young, naive faith in mankind was so obviously misplaced, and that everything you just said is oh, so true.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Bill E Pilgrim

January 21, 2010 11:44 AM

Ah yes, I knew that strange feeling of having Democrats more or less united, in the majority, and agreeing on something was just a temporary alignment of the poles that couldn't last.

Back to a herd of cats again now, that feels more like normal.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

converse

January 21, 2010 11:57 AM in reply to Bill E Pilgrim

There seems to be a strong majority in favor of adopting the slogan "We're Democrats. There's nothing we can do!".

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

dem4life

January 21, 2010 1:43 PM in reply to converse

WHAT SHOULD MASTER CHENEY AND FAMILY SAY.....THEY DID A WHOLE LOT TO GET THIS ECONOMY TO TANK THE WAY IT DID.

OMFG......THE DIRTY REPUBLIPIGS

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Mimi katz

January 21, 2010 11:45 AM

Don't the Dems realize that you can't run on your superior competence and then fail at the things that matter? The Congressional Dems have looked so inept and captive to moneyed interests and self-involved that they are going to deserve the fate they get in November.

Never have I been so disappointed in the party I have supported all my life (first vote for LBJ). Compare how the GOP spun their historic defeat in NY 23 into a victory with the Dems' spinning the loss to Brown as a massive rejection of change. I think Josh's post about Obama thinking he was elected because he was so awesome and not because people really did want change and especially competent governance is dead on. What a bunch of cowards.

Since the GOP doesn't really offer an alternative, I fear that the result of having two dying parties is more apathy and withdrawal from citizenship. Combined with the Supreme Court decision opening the way for Fox News to do a Berlusconi I really think we are at the brink here.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

cube3u

January 21, 2010 12:03 PM in reply to Mimi katz

My first vote was also for LBJ and I agree with you completely. This reminds me of Leiberman and the bill to create Homeland Security.

Negotiations on the bill were proceeding--held up by unions wanting some things in the bill--and suddenly all negotiations from the Republicans halted.

When the midterm campaigns started, the Democrats' failure to act decisively on homeland security was hammered in--Exhibit A was the Homeland Security Bill stalled in the Senate as negotiations with the union were "too much".

Result? Democrats lost more seats in the midterms--overturning the CW that the Prez's party "always" loses in the midterms.

This is exactly what is happening with healthcare. Exactly. And the result will be worse....far worse. The game-changing election will be in November 2010--followed by the Carter-redo election in 2012.

The Democrats have deserted ME--a solid part of their base. Solid with time, money, effort. Deserted.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

January 21, 2010 11:47 AM

The Senate bill is mostly the Baucus bill. Why anyone is shocked that the House won't swallow the Senate bill is beyond me. What was shocking, to me, was people thinking that was gonna happen.

They should tee up the recon ammendments to this bill and pass them together.

They should get started on jobs and the economy, above all. There is no reason to wait on that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

agio

January 21, 2010 11:47 AM

Unbefuckinglievable.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

northernMNer

January 21, 2010 11:47 AM

Un-Frakking-Believable. It is time for the Dems to suffer.

Un-frakking-Believable.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

dem4life

January 21, 2010 1:45 PM in reply to northernMNer

Is this you Michael Steele...the token n

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

This is Hilarious!

January 22, 2010 11:49 AM in reply to dem4life

Who's the clansman now? Racist pig...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

barbara63

January 21, 2010 11:49 AM

I trust Nancy Pelosi to do the right thing, but they've been saying "we have got to get a bill passed" for 20 years! What with the Supreme Court decision this morning, there will never be another time to pass healthcare. You think this bill is industry-driven now, wait for the next one. Pass the Senate Bill now!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

JohnMcCSF

January 21, 2010 11:49 AM

99% of this is and has for the last ten months been public political posturing

All 95 sides of the HCR issue have engaged in it, and it has been 90% of the political problems HCR now faces

These people need to go talk to each other...cut the stunts and go govern

I bet if you checked records of any organization backing HCR you'd see a HUGE drop off in participation metrics over the past 5 months. The grass roots are sick of this crap and so is the electorate

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

SS247

January 21, 2010 11:50 AM

Loss in Mass., SCOTUS decision gutting campaign laws, death of HCR. What a shitty week.

I've lost all faith in our government.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Khyber900

January 21, 2010 11:50 AM

As I read Pelosi's statement, she is saying a few distinct things:

1. There is no GOP likeresolve or unity in the Dem caucus behind passing the Senate bill verbatim. It is a concept that is still being socialized within the caucus.

2. The caucus is still hung up on special deals cut in the Senate, because they see it as a big wedge issue that their opponents will use against them in the fall campaign.

3. The caucus is more comfortable with breaking up the legislation, but Pelosi has indicated that it is unrealistic to expect the Senate to pass piecemeal legislation.

4. Pelosi has indicated that passing the Senate bill and using reconcilation for changes is the way to go, but is giving the caucus time to ponder options.

5. Pelosi is also asking for help from the WH and the Senate. She has limited ability to push this on her own without some support.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

precisioncontrol

January 21, 2010 12:29 PM in reply to Khyber900

I think you hit the nail on the head with this:

Pelosi is also asking for help from the WH and the Senate. She has limited ability to push this on her own without some support.

Pelosi clearly knows how to knock heads together in her caucus -- how else could she get both cap and trade and healthcare (the first time) through? But in order to get the House to move on the Senate bill, they need some assurance about changes to the bill that will move QUICKLY through reconciliation that will reflect some of the negotiations that have been ongoing for the last few weeks.

In order to do that, she needs Reid and Obama to lean on the Senate. Byron Dorgan has already indicated that he's amenable to moving some changes through reconciliation.

It's beyong annoying and disturbing that they weren't already thinking about the shape of a reconciliation bill that could quickly amend the Senate bill just in case Coakley lost. Who doesn't plan for contingencies??

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

expat46

January 21, 2010 11:51 AM

Does anyone know if it's possible to nullify the cornhusker kick back in a reconcilliation bill?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

alkali

January 21, 2010 11:57 AM in reply to expat46

Yes -- it's a straight-up budget issue

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

JohnMcCSF

January 21, 2010 11:57 AM in reply to expat46

Oh yes! Great things are possible ...medicare buy in, tax on wealthy, medicaid expansion PLUS the good part of the Senate bill

And that get right to the nuts of the problem

If the House "progressives" are so afraid they can't fix this with reconcilliation what makes them think they can achieve the same result by stringing passage of comprehensive legislation for another several months???

Their logic is just plain loopy

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

FreeRider

January 21, 2010 12:00 PM in reply to expat46

Yes, it is. It involves money so can be done in the reconciliation process.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

For Want of a Nail

January 21, 2010 11:52 AM

Hahahahah! Why would I ever vote for a Democrat again? I wont. It's time to start building a third party so that perhaps in a generation we have something that can beat the institutional one-party-system we have here.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

expat46

January 21, 2010 12:04 PM in reply to For Want of a Nail

Hey, I hear the Tea Party Patriots are starting a third party. Why don't you go over and give them some financial support.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

For Want of a Nail

January 21, 2010 12:21 PM in reply to expat46

I think indeed that progressives need to reach out more to these folks. Their anger at what is happening in government is justifiable... only misplaced. They're ignorant about the issues and instead are fighting against things that don't exist. We need people like them that are willing to sabotage the powers that be (in their case, Republicans) in order to make their agenda be heard.

Instead of lockstep party members (of either D or R) we need people who are more tied to their agenda than their party. We should be reaching out to these people. I've seen on this very site people talking about how easy it is to open their eyes and convert them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Skybolt

January 21, 2010 12:31 PM in reply to For Want of a Nail

If you put your hand out to a Tea Partier, be prepared to lose it. They have nothing in common with progressives. They are merely louder, more frantic fascists.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

For Want of a Nail

January 21, 2010 12:38 PM in reply to Skybolt

Well I don't suggest you do it. With an attitude like yours it wont add anyone to progressive ranks. I just don't believe that you should discount anyone from discussion. They have just been filled with too much disinformation. True not everyone is going to embrace us but I think we'd both be surprised how many would reconsider their stances.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

barbara63

January 21, 2010 12:49 PM in reply to For Want of a Nail

I do agree with Tea Baggers on one thing: Term limits!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Skybolt

January 21, 2010 12:49 PM in reply to For Want of a Nail

They aren't wingnuts because they're ignorant. They're ignorant because they're wingnuts. It's a choice. They didn't arrive at their viewpoint using facts and logic, and they can't be convinced to change their views using facts and logic. You have to accept that 20% of Americans are actively opposed to democracy. It's a waste of time trying to deal with them when you could be dealing with the 80% of Americans who are not insane.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

For Want of a Nail

January 21, 2010 12:56 PM in reply to Skybolt

I guess I just can't argue with made up statistics. I know people can be converted because I myself am a convert. I grew up in a conservative household and started my adulthood proudly spouting out their ideology. I've been converted using facts and logic and consider myself to be a Democratic Socialist now far left of them and most American politics. Some can be converted to embrace progressive politics if they could only have them presented to them, a situation many of them have lacked.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Skybolt

January 21, 2010 1:08 PM in reply to For Want of a Nail

That is not a made up statistic. It is a well-known figure from John Dean's research. I'm glad you're not a wingnut anymore, but I didn't say that all conservatives are hopeless. Nonetheless there is a large percentage of them that is completely unreachable, and Tea Partiers are of that type.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

For Want of a Nail

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

I guess we're just not going to agree on this. We should just move on.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

whitesauce

January 21, 2010 1:15 PM in reply to For Want of a Nail

I think there has to be an issue with which we all agree with the Tea Partiers -- unless we want to paint them with one broad stroke. I have problems with some of the Tea Partiers' stances, particularly the silly stuff we see on TV. What I don't know is whether those people represent all of the Tea Partiers. There's one thing I have in common with them: I'm angry.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

lousgirl84

January 21, 2010 1:12 PM in reply to Skybolt

Bingo! It appears "For want of a nail" with all due respect. is in need of some common sense.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

expat46

January 21, 2010 1:40 PM in reply to For Want of a Nail

If I could find common cause with the tea-baggers I would welcome them with open arms, sans the racists and whack jobs. You don’t win elections, and thereby effect change, by splitting your coalition. You have to pick side and drive it in the direction you want. Kos figured this out a few years ago and led the charge to primary Lieberman. However, I’m not willing to cut off my nose despite my face like the Hamsher crowd either.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

willia451

January 21, 2010 11:52 AM

Again, I've always believed the Senate and House versions of HIR were irreconcilable. And that House Democrats would never simply "swallow the Senate Bill whole" as is.

And the House does not trust the Senate to "fit it" later. In the Senate, "later" = "never".

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

kJCUWzUl

January 21, 2010 11:53 AM

Anyone can go to Washington and not do anything. Our system of government does not function anymore.

In a 2 party system, if the American people give control of the federal government to one party legislation should get passed.

Until congress can become a functioning institution (unlikely), American will continue to decline.

As it is right now we are fooling ourselves into thinking we are an independent country. We have been bought.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

For Want of a Nail

January 21, 2010 11:53 AM

http://forwantofanail.com/2009/11/the-rights-holy-war-against-what/

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

JohnMcCSF

January 21, 2010 11:53 AM

as we sit by and giggle about how the Teabaggers are tearing the GOP apart??!?!?!

Say what you will of the wacko right...compared to the whining weenies of the left, what they lack in relative sanity they more than make up with tactical competence

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

TJ21

January 21, 2010 11:58 AM in reply to JohnMcCSF

A couple of days ago I was saying well at least we have a Speaker of the House who knows how to find votes. At least we have a president who can flex his political muscle when it matters.

Now I don't know what to tell myself to stay in this perpetual denial, to continue to believe that somehow someway this bill will pass.

I always felt the Obama years would be akin to the Johnson years sans Vietnam. Now I'm thinking they'll be more akin to the Johnson years sans "The Great Society."

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

cube3u

January 21, 2010 12:09 PM in reply to TJ21

More like Carter I think.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

converse

January 21, 2010 12:01 PM in reply to JohnMcCSF

word.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Fritz

January 21, 2010 11:54 AM

Democrats are hopeless, hopeless, hopeless, hopeless.
There's no point in electing them to anything.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

hewhohasnoname

January 21, 2010 12:28 PM in reply to Fritz

Unfortunately, I have to agree. As the Senate staffer pointed out in his letter yesterday: What do the Democrats actually believe in?

I just don't know. I can't think of ANY issue that Democrats have common ground on...

There's absolutely nothing that binds the Democratic Party together -- other than the name.

I mean, when a party can't even coalesce around an issue that's supposed to be a central plank of the party, shouldn't the party cease to exist?

What's the point of the party even existing anymore? They're no more competent than Republicans. Certainly, not more organized. They no longer stand for universal healthcare... Barely stand for financial regulation (think that will be the next collapse or severely neutered legislation).... They're fighting climate change legislation...

They claim to be the party of the people. But, their actions say otherwise.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

GermanyOrFlorida

January 21, 2010 11:54 AM

What were the two options Pelosi outlined?

Just called my Congressman again to try to voice support for the Senate bill, got more run-around about how the bill is in conference and how you'd have to ask the Senate about passing something.

And seriously - the Nebraska thing is peanuts compared to the benefits we'd get out of this bill. If they can't get this passed with the majority they have then what's the purpose of having anything more than a bare Democratic minority that does anything other than defeat veto overrides?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

barbara63

January 21, 2010 12:04 PM in reply to GermanyOrFlorida

Agreed! There is no excuse for this behavior from the Democrats. They seem to respond to bullying, so keep up the pressure. I think if they know their base will abandon them if they fail on this, they might actually do something.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

hoppycalif2

January 21, 2010 11:55 AM

This is the worst possible decision the Democratic Party could make at this time. But, they apparently made it. So, let's try to move on now.

I suggest that the first move, and I think a brilliant move, would be to expand Medicare to cover age 50 and over, and pass it as a budget reconciliation measure. This would be perfectly legal because the budget they already passed includes health care reform, and this would certainly be that. It would also set us firmly on the path to where we need to be - health care for all.

Unfortunately, Congress is filled with spineless Democrats, who value their own bank accounts far above actually serving those who elected them, so they are highly subject to the bribery that corporations are now free to offer. Any Congress critter who votes against the corporations will face certain defeat in the next election, with the TV dominated by corporate ads against them.

Our only recourse may be to elect a corporation as out president.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

wyt

January 21, 2010 12:25 PM in reply to hoppycalif2

Everything needs to be done from this perspective:

1. The Republicans will control both houses after midterms.

2. The Republicans will gain the presidency the two years later.

3. Even seats that stay Democratic will first see incumbents lose in primaries to true progressive liberals with spine.

- unless -

A strong, complete health care overhaul happens in the next several weeks.

- and -

Wall Street investment banks are broken up and neutered within the next year.

Do the job, or lose it. There is no safe ground. If you're going to fail, fail with style.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Maritza

January 21, 2010 11:56 AM

It isn't over yet folks. They CAN get the votes if they do various things.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

barbara63

January 21, 2010 12:38 PM in reply to Maritza

Yes, you are right about that. And I thnk we can help by turning up the heat, calling our reps, and letting them know that it is not OK to fail on this one.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Rich in NJ

January 21, 2010 11:56 AM

The Dems will give Republicans their permanent majority that Rove never could achieve on his own.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

dem4life

January 21, 2010 2:40 PM in reply to Rich in NJ

where is bad breath Rove...still suxing sean hannity

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Rich in NJ

January 21, 2010 3:17 PM in reply to dem4life

Can you translate that into English?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

ns

January 21, 2010 11:57 AM

Message to dem party of 2010: get things done in 2010 or get lost. If they choose to get lost, good riddance.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

human

January 21, 2010 11:57 AM

wow, are they really gonna blow this?

Look folks, the Senate bill is far from my preference, but I've come to believe that we need to hold our noses and vote for this things, and hold those accountable who say we'll fix some of the problems through reconciliation(that means THIS YEAR, Senate d-bags!)
If not the Democratic Party will never, ever be able to wash the stench of failure off of themselves, and the voters don't vote for spineless losers, even when they agree with them on most issues.

p.s. Anyone who says the law would be repealed is an idiot. Let's assume the Repubs re-take the House(still a big if) AND the Senate(an even bigger if) in 2010, then they would still need veto-proof majorities, because as most of you may know, Obama will still be president. On top of that, the Repubs would be arguing for the repeal of many popular provisions that are in there, which would only help to assure Obama and the Dems reelections.
In conclusion, find another argument.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

GermanyOrFlorida

January 21, 2010 12:01 PM in reply to human

Exactly. I went out on Tuesday and held my nose and voted for Coakley. That didn't work. Now the House needs to hold their nose and get this done.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

JohnMcCSF

January 21, 2010 12:04 PM in reply to human

Absolutely and there's a big political advantage to the pass then fix approach...

Issues can be discretely targeted...public option for instance...there are others but the point is that votes on such discrete issues in 2010 is win-win ...puts the GOP and their Big Insurance benefactors on the defensive even if final passage isn't a sure thing

Political infantile paralysis...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

TPMer75

January 21, 2010 12:00 PM

Question.

I live in a red, red state. My locally elected politicians are rubbing their hands with glee. To whom do I complain? Pelosi's office isn't going to care about my concerns once I reveal my zipcode.

I've given lots of money over the years to democrats. And I'm livid that they can't get SOMETHING done. How could they not anticipate this? So much bungling and lack of forethought.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

JohnMcCSF

January 21, 2010 12:05 PM in reply to TPMer75

I have the zip code and your back on this one but she has a Speakers' email for those living outside the frenly confines of CA8

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

lousgirl84

January 21, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to JohnMcCSF

Phone calls are better and anyone can call her/their offices. They pay no attention to the emails because they get so many. They do pay attention to phone calls AND LETTERS.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Skybolt

January 21, 2010 12:45 PM in reply to TPMer75

I live in NY and I wrote to Pelosi. It can't hurt.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Jacob

January 21, 2010 12:01 PM

I would hope, that at the least, they bring it to a vote. If it fails, it fails. This is not a parliamentarian system where a failed vote means the majority collapses. This is surreal.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

fbacon2

January 21, 2010 12:02 PM

Once again, can somebody please explain to me exactly why Pelosi's statement means they aren't still working for some sort of solution?

Breaking up the bill or altering it in some way was what they were saying yesterday, but it was code for lining up changes via reconciliation. If Pelosi means that her caucus has no interest in exploring these options any more, she should just say that, and spare TPM the burden of interpreting her remarks.

Either way, she should probably find someone else to speak for her because she's not very good at the public statement thing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

tmc

January 21, 2010 12:04 PM in reply to fbacon2

Breaking up the bill means having to send each piece through the Senate. And there each piece dies, painfully, at the feet of the Party of No. It's a dead end. It makes the base feel good, but it won't work. I sadly believe the leadership know that. They are viewing HCR as a disaster that will hurt them in the mid-term elections. That seems to be the inside-the-Village view.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

fbacon2

January 21, 2010 12:08 PM in reply to tmc

Agreed that breaking up the bill won't work, and I think the leadership and the policy people get it. The avenue was narrow and it's still obvious: pass the Senate bill. If concessions need to be made up front to guarantee fixes now or later via reconciliation or future budget bills, then that's fine. If the negotiations within the caucus can bring the the break-them-up-caucus around, then fine, too.

The question I'm asking is whether Pelosi is saying that these talks are done?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

cube3u

January 21, 2010 12:16 PM in reply to tmc

I question that this will make the base feel good. I am the base. I have supported Congressional Democrats for DECADES.

Having this go somewhere to die simply will not work. The Dems are boxed in by their own greed (Nelson's deal in Nebraska) and the slow-down approach to win bipartisan support. All the Republicans have to do in November is highlight the very popular parts of healthcare reform that the Democrats could not pass--win in the midterms--then pass the damned legislation that Obama will sign. Then Obama will be gone after the 2012 election. Why support the Democrats?

This is the Homeland Security Bill all over again. Same GOP trick is apparently working again.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

January 21, 2010 12:08 PM in reply to fbacon2

you're right. Nothing has changed. The House was never gonna swallow the Senate bill. All the same options that were being discussed the other day are still on the table.

"We have to get a bill passed -- we know that. That's a predicate that we all subscribe to."

people are extra-frothy since losing to the GOP yesterday. No stomach for the legislative process.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

fbacon2

January 21, 2010 12:10 PM in reply to Indie Pro

Ok, so you're seeing the same thing I am. The froth is definitely contagious. But I suspect we'll know more soon as Pelosi will be asked to explain herself.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Khyber900

January 21, 2010 12:08 PM in reply to fbacon2

I think Pelosi gave a very accurate summary of the current state of mind of the caucus. The caucus is in denial that there are other alternatives to passing the Senate bill. I am not very hopeful at this point because of the President's notable absence, but if one were to see a ray of hope in this, I guess it would be that Pelosi is getting a list of items that the caucus would want changed, and then Conrad could give a promise that they would be considered through reconciliation. From what I've read and heard in interviews, the members of Congress seem to be most preoccupied with the sweetheart deals that were cut in the Senate, because they think those provide great fodder for opponents who want to attack the way DC does business.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

fbacon2

January 21, 2010 12:12 PM in reply to Khyber900

That's my read, too. Josh jumped on her comments about "not being enough votes" to interpret it as waving the white flag. I'm nothing if not pessimistic at this point, but we shouldn't be running for the exits until we're definitely told the talks are over.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AnswerFrog

January 21, 2010 12:04 PM

Bring it to a vote!!!

Let's see which Dems are turncoats that need to be primaried.

Let's make them record for hisotry which are traitors that would rather kill Americans than compromise.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

EastWest

January 21, 2010 12:04 PM

In a companion post, Josh said:

Would have been nice to know back in January they didn't have the fortitude for this.

Wrong. It would have been nice to know back in November they didn't have the fortitude for this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

barbara63

January 21, 2010 12:14 PM in reply to EastWest

I'll go back as far as the primaries. I have never ever criticized Obama before in public, but now I want my vote back and all the money my husband and I gave him. If he shows the same kind of vigor on saving healthcare reform that he did for getting Chicago the Olympics, I'll probably change my mind.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

ogliberal

January 21, 2010 12:05 PM

I quit. I fucking quit. It's not worth the time and emotion I put into paying attention to this shit. I've been optimistic through this whole process, probably too optimistic. I kept telling my wife, "Don't worry, it's going to pass." Even after Brown won, I said, "Well, they'll just pass the Senate bill and make Brown irrelevant." Now they want to throw it all out the window? WTF are they thinking?

Goodbye Dem majority in both houses in 2010. Hello President Palin in 2012. Don't think it can happen? Well, we didn't think some tea bagging idiot with a pickup truck would win Teddy's seat, did we?

And I don't care if this is posturing with Pelosi giving her caucus time to think about it. Dem leaders need to be out there saying, "We lost one fucking seat...big deal. We worked too hard on this and the American people expect results. We WILL pass healthcare reform using the HUGE majorities we still have in both houses." And then beat the shit out of the folks in the House who are holding out on passing the Senate bill. Sorry, folks, but the Senate bill is 100 times better than nothing, both from a policy and a political perspective. Starting over isn't an option and if you even think they will "start over", you're smoking some damned good hash. If "start over" is the option they pick, you'll see some token meetings about a "new plan" but nothing real and nothing to vote on. The WH is already itching to move on, as are the American people. Do you think anybody is up for the idiots in Congress spending another 4-6 months haggling over something called "healthcare reform" that is even less certain to pass that what we have on the table now.

Cut your losses...pass the Senate bill and fix the problems in future legislation. And then get working on making sure the voters see the Dems as the party that is trying to get people JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. Don't do that and the Dems lose both houses in the Fall.

What a fucking horror show.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

hoppycalif2

January 21, 2010 1:34 PM in reply to ogliberal

I second everything you said! Very good summation. I just emailed my rep - Matsui - demanding that she get the Senate bill passed and passed quickly.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

dougjNJ

January 21, 2010 12:06 PM

I think the "progressives" are just afraid to cast the vote. The can speak vaguely about how the votes aren't there, but do we really know what Weiner, Nadler, Frank, Grijalva, et al would do when push came to shove? Their choices are support a bill they aren't happy with or kill health care reform, and they're simply paralyzed at the prospect of facing a vote where there is no ideal option. Say what you will about moderates, they don't just take their ball and go home when they're faced with a difficult vote.

On some level, I'd like to see them vote on it. I want to know who is actually going to go through with killing health care at least until the next Democratic president (which may be awhile) and who is actually mature enough to get off their high horse and just do what is best for the country. Of course, losing a vote would be more damaging then putting it off indefinitely, but it would still be nice to know. And who knows? Once the individual representatives are faced with the real choice and can't just hide themselves in a progressive caucus, maybe they'll feel the pressure to do the right thing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AnswerFrog

January 21, 2010 12:12 PM in reply to dougjNJ

That's why these ASSHOLE PSEUDO-PROGRESSIVE TRAITORS need to be forced to vote on this. Make them vote. Let them explain to thousands who will die for a generation why they are too gutless to reach a compromise.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Kali Star

January 21, 2010 12:21 PM in reply to AnswerFrog

agree

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

EastWest

January 21, 2010 12:22 PM in reply to AnswerFrog

Bullshit. All year long, the "moderates" have been pissing on the progressives, and calling it rain. Every step of the way, it's been a little pat on the head and "Don't worry, honey. We'll fix it later." All year long the progressives have been saying the whole thing needs to be done properly. All year long the progressives have been begging for leadership from the White House. What did that get them? More yellow rain.

Now everybody's shocked, simply shocked that the progressives are saying, "No!" If you treat people like shit, do NOT expect them to come to your rescue when your own weakness bites you in the ass.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Skybolt

January 21, 2010 12:43 PM in reply to EastWest

Fuck that. These people aren't children. Their obligations don't change when their feelings are hurt. After they vote for the bill they can use their fabulous health insurance to go talk to a shrink about their unresolved feelings of hostility towards moderate Democrats.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

EastWest

January 21, 2010 12:57 PM in reply to Skybolt

They aren't voting for this bill because it's crap. This isn't about "hurt feelings" no matter how much you might like to twist it. The leadership wouldn't listen. They should have. Now it's biting them - and us! - in the ass.

You may want to make excuses, be the good little apologist, and blame the wrong people. You may also like the thought of tea baggers taking over Congress. That's the sort of thing that happens when you kick to the curb the very people who brought Mr. Hope into office in the first place. Good plan.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Skybolt

January 21, 2010 1:13 PM in reply to EastWest

Excuse me, but you just said, in your previous comment on this subthread, "If you treat people like shit, do NOT expect them to come to your rescue when your own weakness bites you in the ass." It was your idea that progressive Dems were taking positions based not on principles but on some sort of tantrum.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Chesire111

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

Great, so progressive members of congress, whose health insurance is provide by the voters, are going to deny chemotherapy to uninsured cancer patients because their feelings are hurt because the only available option isn't as good as it should be.

Make'em vote against it so we can throw the bastards out of office.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

EastWest

January 21, 2010 1:01 PM in reply to Chesire111

MAKE THE REPUBLICANS VOTE AGAINST IT!!!!!

The only people who should be thrown out of office are Reid, Pelosi, Nelson, Lieberman, Lincoln, and just maybe Obama.

Every member of the "leadership" has failed us, and you want to punish the people who tried to stop it!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Leo

January 21, 2010 1:32 PM in reply to EastWest

Right, be spiteful. Great idea.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AnswerFrog

January 21, 2010 2:48 PM in reply to EastWest

Well pal, I'm a progressive and moderates and crooks have been pissing on me for a year now. Do I like it? Would I rather see single payer? Yes. But doing nothing is simply not an option. People will die if we don't do anything for another decade or two.

I understand why progressives are pissed. I'm pissed. But any of these House members who vote against a HCR bill are TRAITORS. They are just as bad as the Blue Dog jackasses and other assorted crooks who have obstructed HCR from the beginning. That Blue Dogs and Lieberman are asshole traitors is not excuse for liberal house members to betray EVERYTHING DEMS STAND FOR, which is namely, HCR.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

barbara63

January 21, 2010 12:20 PM in reply to dougjNJ

I agree with you completely. I want to know what "progressives" vote against reform. I don't want to let these hypocrites off the hook.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

landow

January 21, 2010 12:06 PM

Serious changes are going to have to be made in our political system or we are looking at a lifetime of de facto conservative Republican control. It is becoming painfully clearer to me day by day that the Democrats simply do not have what it takes to govern effectively. They are an empty shell of a party, able to accomplish nearly nothing, and people do not vote for parties that get nothing done; not their supporters, not independents, nobody. Its almost as if they got to power, realized they can't handle it, and are now trying to cede power back to the Republicans by making the stupidest political moves in recent memory just so they don't have to make decisions about anything of importance. Their cowardice and lack of conviction is really awe-inspiring to me. At this point I really couldn't care less if Republicans take back control of Congress in November because they practically control it now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

rwp

January 21, 2010 12:07 PM

Truly sad--They put themselves in this position by saying they "needed" 60..Bush needed 51 these idiots need 60..They deserve to lose but I am not a fan of cutting off the nose like what happened in MA.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Powkat

January 21, 2010 12:07 PM

And, as 45,000 Americans die every year, Congress fiddles. They don't even pretend to care anymore. It's all about them, nothing to do with real governance or the suffering populace. I give up - does anyone know if Rosetta Stone lives up to it's hype? Time to learn another language and move on.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Zell

January 21, 2010 12:09 PM in reply to Powkat

Taking the question at face value:

No. Rosetta Stone is rote memorization of random words, which is not the way to learn a language. Go for Pimsleur instead.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

again

January 21, 2010 12:18 PM in reply to Zell

Forget Pimsleur. Take a night class and take in a room-mate who speaks the language well. In this economy, that shouldn't be hard.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Zell

January 21, 2010 12:27 PM in reply to again

Of course an actual course and happening to have a roommate who speaks the language would be better than Pimsleur, but then you might as well say "Forget about an actual course and happening to have a roommate who speaks the language, go for complete immersion by moving to Bongo Bongo", as that would be better than a course and a roommate.

The person I was responding to was asking a question specifically about Rosetta Stone, which is a self-learning tool. The answer to the question is that Rosetta Stone is not a particularly good self-learning tool. Expanding upon this, given that the questioner is interested in self-learning tools rather than moving to Bongo Bongo, Pimsleur is the way to go.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

acf_ma

January 21, 2010 12:07 PM

We're in no rush? We're in a rush for our lives! If they hadn't frittered the spring and summer away in the misguided belief that they could find a Republican or two to finish this, we would be on to other issues today, and not having this discussion. They fell, face first, into the Republicans' trap of pretending to have Olympia Snowe 'negotiating, listening and not quite making up her mind yet'. The Republicans knew, full well, that they had no intention of supporting anything, just stringing the fight out until they could cripple it, or kill it outright. Well, we'll see what this election defeat will make Democrats do...grow a spine, or wiggle away like a worm.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

GR

January 21, 2010 12:08 PM

I doth think that Josh hypes these things up...must be good for traffic, but not our blood pressure.

Look- she has a tough vote - especially Stupak. But take this a day at a time.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Chesire111

January 21, 2010 12:09 PM

Twenty one years ago, after listening to the first President Bush travel the country telling my countrymen that people from Massachusetts - people like me - aren't "real" Americans, I swore a personal oath that I would never in my life vote for a Republican for any office.

For twenty one years, I have never voted for a GOP candidate. In those few instances in which a particular Republican was obviously the better person for the job, I have abstained, but I simply cannot vote for a party that would run a campaign stigmatizing me, my family, fiends and neighbors, disparaging our patriotism and morals. Frankly, I will burn in hell before I vote for a Republican for any office anywhere.

That said, if the Dems really do walk away from HCR, then they can go fuck themselves as well. It's obvious that, to the Republicans, Democrats and corporations, that we serfs are nothing more than meat to be harvested for votes and money.

I'm done, it's over, fuck'em all to hell and back.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

again

January 21, 2010 12:10 PM

From Nate Silver:

"The Post-Partisan Epic Fail

David Leonhardt at the New York Times has this smart take on the now-imperiled health care bill:

'The bills before Congress are politically partisan and substantively bipartisan.

'What does that mean? The first part is obvious. All 60 Senate Democrats and independents voted for the bill, and all 40 Republicans voted against it. The second part is the counterintuitive one. Yet it’s true.

'The current versions of health reform are the product of decades of debate between Republicans and Democrats. The bills are more conservative than Bill Clinton’s 1993 proposal. For that matter, they’re more conservative than Richard Nixon’s 1971 plan, which would have had the federal government provide insurance to people who didn’t get it through their job.'

Emphasis mine. Back in 2008, the smart liberal spin on "post-partisanship" -- one which I frankly bought into -- is that it was in part an effort to put a popular, centrist sheen on a relatively liberal agenda. Instead, as Leonhardt points out, what Obama has wound up with is an unpopular, liberal sheen on a relatively centrist agenda."

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

January 21, 2010 12:34 PM in reply to again

what Obama has wound up with is an unpopular, liberal sheen on a relatively centrist agenda.

I agree, though I think this far more right of center legislation than centrist. It cements the US into a privatized system. There is nothing community-based or liberal about that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

cube3u

January 21, 2010 1:18 PM in reply to Indie Pro

And without any legislation, what is cemented? It is put up or shut up right now for the Congressional Dems.

Without passage, they will kiss goodbye to a House majority in November. With passage, they have a shot in keeping that majority and making future changes--unless you somehow have the idea that future changes are never done. (Reference Social Security from 1935 to its present form.)

And with your legislative "knowledge", give me a reason that any Repbulican in the Senate would step in to pass any bill on jobs or the economy or anything else. The committees will drag their feet due to archaic rules of fair play for the republicans who just have to stall and stall and stall until November. It worked with healthcare--stalled for 7 months. Now, the Senate with their PR release yelped on that the GOP really, really needs to work with them. How do you think that will work out?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

January 21, 2010 1:31 PM in reply to cube3u

so fear is all you have to offer me.

Pass the senate bill or else DOOM!

Pass the senate bill or else the GOP DOOM!

you should try arguing for a bill that is worth a crap, or a party that actually reforms, and not use the conservative fear campaign if you are truly concerned about winning an election.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

JohnMcCSF

January 21, 2010 12:10 PM

I just sent Pelosi's district office an email strongly urging that she assign someone on staff to read these most excellent comments

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

barbara63

January 21, 2010 1:16 PM in reply to JohnMcCSF

Great idea. And if you compare people's comments today to ones they've made in the past, you'll see a real change in tone. Mine has changed anyway. I've always been a cheerleader for the Democrats and thought it was counterproductive to ever criticize them in public. Not anymore! I hope I am wrong, but I think losing their minority has exposed them for the frauds they really are on healthcare reform.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

agio

January 21, 2010 12:13 PM

A Republican-dominated Congress sets fire to the forum then fiddles while Rome burns. So we elect Democrats with a strong mandate to change.

And they change the tune, but keep fiddling.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Tom K.

January 21, 2010 12:13 PM

Epic Fail!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AnswerFrog

January 21, 2010 12:13 PM

Cotnact pelosi and the white house.

Tell your congressperson that this is unacceptable.

If they take a vote and it fails, that's better than giving up.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

agio

January 21, 2010 12:42 PM in reply to AnswerFrog

I just got off the phone with my rep's staffers, who basically said he's waiting for the Dem "leadership" to propose something. Oy vey.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

MNPundit

January 21, 2010 12:13 PM

No. We just have to deal with it. The Republicans win because they let people suffer. It's not pretty and it's not a good thing but we have to be willing to do the same to beat them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Zell

January 21, 2010 12:15 PM

I have, over the past several years, donated in excess of $10,000 to various Democrats. Perhaps I'm speaking in the heat of emotion, and perhaps I'll feel differently in a few weeks or months or years, but as of this moment I'm thinking that's over.

I wish them well, but I'm not wasting my money anymore.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

alkali

January 21, 2010 12:23 PM in reply to Zell

Agreed. I could have a nice boat right now instead of what I do have, which is a bunch of canceled checks to Democratic campaigns, not suitable for framing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

satya

January 21, 2010 12:16 PM

Then get the fuck out of office Pelosi. If you can't get health care done with the votes that the American people gave you, then you are a fucking joke and there is no reason for anyone to do the hard work of organizing and working for Democrats again. Ever. That's the question you're facing: does anything you do make a damn bit of difference to the people you represent. If your answer is to offer nothing but a path that you know will go nowhere, you have destroyed the party and you should get the hell out of public office.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AnswerFrog

January 21, 2010 12:17 PM

Pelosi needs to step down.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Moose49

January 21, 2010 12:17 PM

To Pelosi and the members of the Democratic Caucus: Fuck You!

Forget about ever getting a penny of my money or a minute of your time again.

You are a bunch of spineless cowards who don't deserve to be in the majority.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

OhioGuy

January 21, 2010 12:19 PM

I can understand the need for some closed-door talks in the caucus, but at some point very soon Pelosi and Obama both need to come out in public and demand that the House pass the Senate bill, as the only remaining option left.

Pelosi needs to name names of those Democrats who won't vote for the bill. Put them on record. Let's see these folks defend killing HCR when primary season comes.

We talk a lot about primarying marginal districts and that sometimes makes sense but let's not forget that there's very little downside to primarying safe "progressive" districts where the Represenatative won't support HCR. I'm looking at you Grijalva.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

barbara63

January 21, 2010 12:27 PM in reply to OhioGuy

Absolutely correct! These hypocrites are willing to sacrafice millions of imporverished people for the sake of their "progressive principles."

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

barbara63

January 21, 2010 1:01 PM in reply to barbara63

I meant "impoverished." I blame the Democrats for all my misspellings today. They have made me so angry, I can't even put letters in the proper order anymoer!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

allen bukoff

January 21, 2010 1:15 PM in reply to barbara63

Barbara63, what is more hypocritical: to not support a bill that others call "health care reform" that is not health care reform or support a bill that is not health care reform and call it health care reform?

"sacrafice millions of imporverished people"
Surely you jest. This bill provides so little real help to so few real people that. YOU sacrified millions of people when you didn't draw and hold the line at a public option.

The reason why you centrist/moderates ("Village Democrats") are so hysterical right now is because you're starting to see that YOU are the ones who are going to get blamed for ruining health care reform, NOT the progressives. Few people are buying this "progressives are to blame crap." Maybe if you'd gotten a little more hysterical and brought out all this new found fighting spirit when the single-payer, then public-option compromises were going down, you wouldn't be in this position with egg and people's lives all over your face.

The real story and focus here is not the incredibly small and blurry distance between what we have now for health care and the Senate "health care reform" bill and the FEW real people it will help. The real story--now and in the future--is the great distance between what real health care reform entails (single-payer), the mandate and power the Village Democrats were given a year ago, and what they have delivered. That is the shocking failure, not the failure of progressives to support the scam that has been delivered.

You know YOUR SIDE is in bad shape when the only 3 arguments you are left with for supporting the Senate Bill is 1. "it's better than nothing" (and many people will debate that) and 2. "let's pass it and fix it later (this is more easily made as an argument to oppose something not support it), and 3. "this is our only/last chance for xx years/generations (not fact, but a prediction, and one that would have been better used as a motivation to create and fight for a strong bill than to sell a weak one).

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Silence

January 21, 2010 12:21 PM

Brown was God send for the Dems. He have them a back door to escape this mess. There was never a feasible way to pay for this HC monstrosity.

I hope you all enjoyed the show.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

tmc

January 21, 2010 12:26 PM in reply to Silence

So the CBO scoring that said the Senate bill would save rather than cost was ..what?? Sorry, that sounds like a talking point, not a reality.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

lousgirl84

January 21, 2010 12:26 PM in reply to Silence

Go join that ALL WHITE BASKETBALL LEAGUE. I see you've already got your shoes on.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

agio

January 21, 2010 12:21 PM

Somewhere, I believe it was on TPM, I read a comment that a failure to enact HCR would have a generational impact. And I do believe that to be the case. Obama won the presidency in large part because he convinced a lot of first-time and unlikely voters that their voice counts, that if they get out there and work hard enough they can change the dynamic.

Now we've gone from the the party of Hope to the party of Nope.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

wyt

January 21, 2010 12:32 PM in reply to agio

At least the Republicans are being honest when they say "No" to everything. Democrats have embraced "No" while calling it something else. Most of them should just join the Republican Party now and be done with this charade. Can we just declare the Democratic Party over already? It's become the refuge of dithering idiots.

The Republicans are even stupider. But at least they don't drool on themselves.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

WiliamWalace

January 21, 2010 12:22 PM

These Dogs roll over much better then my pet dog. He doesnt have balls either, but he'll put up a good fight when backed into a corner. The dems haven't changed a bit. The right-wing nuts are at least co-ordinated enough to put their pants on and get a job they set out to do finished.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

alkali

January 21, 2010 12:25 PM

Incidentally, I appreciate the outrage, but I think it's misdirected at Pelosi. This is on the White House. Obama needs to say, now, and explicitly, what should be done. He is the leader of the party or he isn't.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

EastWest

January 21, 2010 12:27 PM in reply to alkali

He isn't.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

JohnMcCSF

January 21, 2010 12:29 PM in reply to alkali

UR right on both counts. WRT Pelosi, she's letting the progressive caucus let of steam, air their angst and if need be twist slowly in the wind

She can count votes and this is part of her strategery. Still I wish they'd cut out all the public preening and get to work

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Chesire111

January 21, 2010 12:40 PM in reply to alkali

In any other democracy in the world, a failure like this would lead to an immediate no confidence vote in the leadership...in America, it's just another workday.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

JohnMcCSF

January 21, 2010 12:26 PM

Sodden thought....

Over the summer and fall the CW among Dems was that if HCR failed the blame would clearly fall on Nelson, Lieberman et al

Well my how times have changed

If HCR fails to pass, now and for the next 20 years, it will be known that House "progressives" leadership killed comprehensive reform

Balls in their court....

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Zell

January 21, 2010 12:30 PM in reply to JohnMcCSF

Please. There is plenty of blame to go around, and if you think that we will forget about the absurd delays and watering down caused by Lieberman, Baucus, and their ilk, you are extremely mistaken.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

tmc

January 21, 2010 12:57 PM in reply to JohnMcCSF

In fact, the house progressives seem to think they'll get brownie points if they let this die.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

tropicgirl

January 21, 2010 12:27 PM

Now that the 60% vote requirement hoax has been exposed as a fraud, perpetuated by the Democratic majority, it becomes clear that the Hoaxey-Change team is much more interested in an insurance reform hoax than actual reform.

What is interesting is that the republican spin, that the "bill went too far in a takeover", is incorrect, but that is the neo-con line you will hear from Rush and Beck, but it is incorrect.

It is also incorrect of Obama and Glibbs and Ax to say, "this is the anger that brought us into office". Not so. People are mad at YOU, my friend. It cannot be hidden. That is the progressive spin in the other direction. Neither is an honest evaluation. In fact, they are both incredibly dishonest spin jobs.

Here is an important poll that shows that the people of Massachusetts rejected the health care bill because it was BAD, DISHONEST, TOO EXPENSIVE for NOTHING and DID NOT GO FAR ENOUGH. Over 70% people in Mass. want a public option, even though they have Romney-care, which is incredibly unsuccessful and unpopular.

The independents in Mass. voted for Obama when he was FAR MORE LIBERAL (and honest) in his rhetoric.

Here is the poll:
95% of voters said the economy was important or very important when it came to deciding their vote.

53% of Obama voters who voted for Brown and 56% of Obama voters who did not vote in the Massachusetts election said that Democrats enacting tighter restrictions on Wall Street would make them more likely to vote Democratic in the 2010 elections.

51% of voters who voted for Obama in 2008 but Brown in 2010 said that Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street.

*****HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT: Nearly half (49%) of Obama voters who voted for Brown support the Senate health care bill or THINK IT DOES NOT GO FAR ENOUGH. Only 11% think the legislation goes TOO FAR.

I say, Unless Obama fires Geithner, and many other in his administration, and returns to either a public option or an expansion of Medicare, WHICH MOST CONSERVATIVES HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH, we know he is hoaxing. Which he is, no doubt. And we know it. They know it in Massachusetts. But it may be too late...

Here is the link:
http://pol.moveon.org/brownpoll/results.html

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

JohnMcCSF

January 21, 2010 12:30 PM in reply to tropicgirl

Bullshit

The 60 vote Senate supermajority a HOAX?

Fucking reality

Another case in point - the Weenie Wing cannot govern

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Steve LaBonne

January 21, 2010 12:35 PM in reply to JohnMcCSF

It could be nuked tomorrow if 50 Senators + Biden had balls. All it takes is a point of order ruled on by Biden and sustained on a simple majority vote. (Points of order are not subject to debate.) You could, as Casey Stengel said, look it up.

It's an excuse. They don't want to be on the hook for accomplishing anything for their constituents instead of their paymasters. Most of them are breathing a sigh of relief that they "only" have 59 votes again.

Hoax? Damn straight. Always has been.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

JohnMcCSF

January 21, 2010 12:33 PM in reply to tropicgirl

Speaking of MoveOn...I rec'd their Allons a Waterloo petition yesterday..I groaned

Wanna bet the number of signatures is down at least 50% since their summer drives????

Can't govern

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Silence

January 21, 2010 12:30 PM

My work is done here.

Have a nice day.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

govewood

January 21, 2010 12:31 PM

Irrespective of the Brown results in Massachusetts, Health Reform coming to this point was probably inevitable what with the veto power Senate rules give the Liebermans, Nelsons, Lincolns of the world. Those senators at a minimum weren't going to sign off on anything from a conference result that reflected the House progressives preferences with public option, surtax on the rich, national insurance exchanges, etc.

For not the first time since before the Civil War, the Senate rules, specifically the one regarding cloture, are hollowing out what passes for American democracy. The Senate rules functionally make the House irrelevant, creating a Tyranny of the Minority. No wonder almost all if not all democracies that have arisen in the last 200+ years don't copy the "American" model! In real democracies, one party's going from holding 60% of the seats to 59% of the seats is no political earthquake, it barely registers. In the future, for a Senate candidate to get my vote, I want to hear a pledge to change the Senate's rules as Job #1.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

EastWest

January 21, 2010 12:37 PM in reply to govewood

Irrespective of the Brown results in Massachusetts, Health Reform coming to this point was probably inevitable what with the veto power Senate rules give the Liebermans, Nelsons, Lincolns of the world.

And it wasn't the progressives who have given them that power. It was the so-called leadership. Too many people want to blame the wrong group.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Chesire111

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

Democrats are once again proving that their true allegiance lies with anachronistic Senate rules rather than the lives of the American people. Sure uninsured Americans are being denied chemotherapy, but at least no one can question Harry Reid's Senatorial attiquette and really folks, isn't THAT what truly matters?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

ChrisNBama

January 21, 2010 12:33 PM

I'm furious. Seriously pissed off!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

CT Voter

January 21, 2010 12:36 PM

I can understand, sorta, why they might not have anticipated Coakley's loss until it was too late.

But the contingency they should have been planning for, all along, was Robert Byrd becoming incapacitated. The fact that they're just now thinking about how to handle this is further evidence of their fecklessness.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

DCM

January 21, 2010 12:40 PM

The failure of Dems to harness the groundswell of support and use it to positively change the nation (and world) once Obama entered office is comparable to the failure of the Bush Administration to harness the outpouring of support from the world post-9/11 to the same end.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

hewhohasnoname

January 21, 2010 12:49 PM in reply to DCM

They couldn't harness the energy, because the Democratic Party no longer has any core beliefs. It's hard to rally people to your side when you don't even know what you believe yourself.

I'm astonished that the Democratic Party, while controlling the Senate, House of Representatives AND White House, couldn't coalesce around healthcare, which was supposed to be a central plank of the party. Democrats were fighting against Democrats on implementing a policy that was supposed to a core Democratic principle.

The Democratic Party is feckless and useless.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Steve LaBonne

January 21, 2010 12:42 PM

By the way, if you read Pelosi's comments carefully, she's not ruling out Plan B, only straight-up passage of the Senate bill with no further changes.

And if you really want Plan B, recognize that FIRST the amendments need to be voted on by BOTH houses, THEN the House can vote on the Senate bill. (This does not cause technical problems- Obama merely has to sign the Senate bill moments before he signs the amendment package.) Nobody does, or should, trust the Senate to "fix it later".

Or of course, you could just go on punching hippies instead of being serious.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

agio

January 21, 2010 12:47 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

While I agree with your point, the question I have is: if that is the case why doesn't she come out and say it.

It is almost as if Democrats don't realize that they are hemorrhaging support from their base over this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Steve LaBonne

January 21, 2010 12:50 PM in reply to agio

Because unlike most Dem leaders she's smart enough not to do her negotiating in public.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

agio

January 21, 2010 12:55 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

So... just curious, since you always seem to be pretty observant, how do you think this will play out?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Steve LaBonne

January 21, 2010 12:59 PM in reply to agio

I don't know. I see basically two possibilities: maybe they'll manage Plan B, or maybe they'll pass something modest like a simple Medicare 50+ or 55+ buyin that can be rammed through the Senate under reconciliation and call it a day (the latter being my preference). But I don't think anybody in the House wants to face the voters with NOTHING to show for all this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Xantar

January 21, 2010 12:55 PM in reply to agio

Right now, the important thing is to get House Dems to realize that they have exactly one choice. Many of them still seem to be in denial about it. And like anybody who is in denial, if you beat them over the head with reality, they just retreat further into their shell. My gut feeling is Pelosi will pull out the strong-arm tactics when the time is right, but it's too early yet.

Which is also why we should all be calling our representatives and telling them to vote for the bill. The sooner they realize where their constituents are at, the sooner they will pull their heads out of the sand.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

agio

January 21, 2010 1:06 PM in reply to Xantar

Just called mine and told the staffer that doing nothing was not an option. If passing the Senate bill is the only way forward, take it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

jinga

January 21, 2010 1:12 PM in reply to Xantar

Xantar,

I just called my Congressman and left a message. I couldn't agree more. It is time for Pelosi to go scorched earth. Any House democrat who opposes this should get no support from the party. Or how about tar and feathers?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

January 21, 2010 12:47 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

Nobody does, or should, trust the Senate to "fix it later".

This!

and then some.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

fbacon2

January 21, 2010 12:59 PM in reply to Indie Pro

If there's a grand bargain in the offering, it would be less about trusting the senate than extracting a very concrete promise to change certain provisions via reconciliation. Where trust becomes a factor is whether the House will take a vote with a promise to put together a budget reconciliation measure a few months down the road. The reason I'm so pessimistic is that there's not just a question of trust but a question of basic competence and self-awareness from members of the House over whether they understand that they have one path now for their own survival.

Doesn't mean it's over, but something needs to upset the current trajectory.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Indie Pro

January 21, 2010 1:08 PM in reply to fbacon2

Congress Matters, DKOS and others have listed the means by which this is done simultaneously.

There's always good reason to be skeptical. But I think this will get done. I think all the fighting over the months have won some good things. I think more might be won before it is all over. Take heart.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

WiliamWalace

January 21, 2010 12:59 PM in reply to Steve LaBonne

It's almost like when I go to the snack isle of the grocery store for food. There are so many options. I never have a plan. I leave too many alternatives open. I can't decide on what I want. In the end I don't get anything.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

EastWest

January 21, 2010 12:51 PM

Even beyond the completely predictable nature of this debacle is the sudden knee-jerk need to blame the Progressive Caucus. As I've said above and in numerous other posts, the progressives have been trying to point the way forward throughout the entire year-long discussion. They've been shoved aside, talked down to, cursed, and generally been treated like pariahs.

Now HCR seems to be blowing up due to:
(a) an arbitray and self-imposed "60-vote majority" rule;
(b) failure, as CT Voter notes, to plan for losing one or more of those precious 60 votes;
(c) giving absolute credence to the ConservaDems and Lieberman;
(d) presenting a bill so weak the only way to get it passed is by saying, "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today".

This doesn't even take into account the goodies put in there for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

And who gets the blame for the failure? The very people who tried to keep it from coming to this point in the first place.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

whitesauce

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

You've nailed it on the head. The stance against the progressive-leaning people over the last few months on this site has been very disappointing. Now, the very people who were ridiculing Progressives in December are now whining that politicians who have been consistent on the issue for more than a year are betraying them.

Let's just take this bill apart and pass it in separate pieces. I have no problem with a health insurance regulation bill that changes the rules regarding pre-existing conditions, recision, and other things. Let's get something positive done and we all can agree on.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Zell

January 21, 2010 1:21 PM in reply to EastWest

Please. There is plenty of blame to go around, and we all understand that. However, the fact that Baucus and Lieberman and their ilk dawdled and wasted time and watered things down does not change the fact that there is currently an immediate and pressing problem, nor the fact that that immediate and pressing problem is the progressive wing of the Democratic caucus of the House of Representatives.

I say this as a progressive.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Left-wing-libertarian

January 21, 2010 12:51 PM

Looking at the approve/ disapprove Gallup poll. I never thought that there would be a week I "disapprove" of Obama, but here we are.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Zell

January 21, 2010 12:58 PM in reply to Left-wing-libertarian

Agreed - the same thing happened to me. I just happened to glance at the poll, and immediately thought "I disapprove of Obama".

I was actually shocked at myself, and saddened. Even as recently as three days ago I thought that the people who disapproved of him were absurd. Nonetheless, it's true: As of this moment, I disapprove of Obama.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

barbara63

January 21, 2010 1:03 PM in reply to Left-wing-libertarian

I was thinking the exact same thing. If I get a phone call today, I will respond "Strongly Disapprove."

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Sailormarlowe

January 21, 2010 12:56 PM

If Pelosi will walk in humility to Rep. Michele Bachmann and plead for assistance & bipartisanship on this matter, there is still hope for a reasonable, workable healthcare package.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

whitesauce

January 21, 2010 3:02 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe

LOL!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

clonecone

January 21, 2010 12:58 PM

All no votes are equal. Weiner, Nadler, Frank, Grijalva, Massa, Kucinich, etc. are the new Michele Bachmanns.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

whitesauce

January 21, 2010 3:09 PM in reply to clonecone

So those who took the bill seriously are at fault and not Sens. Baucus, Konrad, Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson, Lieberman and Snowe. The House passed an imperfect bill and then the Senate moved it to the right.

This bill got watered down because Congress didn't play hardball. Instead, they sat quietly while conservative factions played hardball. Now, you all want Progressives to give in more. No respect.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

clonecone

January 21, 2010 3:31 PM in reply to whitesauce

Can you count to 60? There's only one bill that can pass the senate and that's the bill we have. Which Republican is going to suddenly support your magical unicorn bill?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Barry Schwartz

January 21, 2010 1:00 PM

The fans of that penny-pinching misanthrope Dennis Kucinich are rejoicing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

bdtex

January 21, 2010 1:01 PM

"We're in no rush," Pelosi said.

Politically,I don't think she understands how narrow the window is. The Dem base is tired. The window for action is about to close.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

jinga

January 21, 2010 1:07 PM in reply to bdtex

If you live in a congressional district with a democrat that is up for re-election please call and tell them you will stay at home this November. They have to realize, they have to hear that caving on this issue is going to make things worse for them. If we're going down, let's at least do the right thing. Otherwise, who cares which party controls Congress?

U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

agio

January 21, 2010 1:08 PM in reply to jinga

Um, not that I disagree, but... isn't every Rep up for re-election in 2010?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Zell

January 21, 2010 1:11 PM in reply to agio

Yes, and it's a good thing, too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

jinga

January 21, 2010 1:15 PM in reply to agio

Yes, of course. My syntax suffers when I am angry! The emphasis was on whether your congressman is a democrat.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

agio

January 21, 2010 1:36 PM in reply to jinga

Nit = picked. Like I said, I agree with your point.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

bdtex

January 21, 2010 1:22 PM in reply to jinga

I live in Tom DeLay's old Congressional District. My Rep is Republican Pete Olson.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Equityval

January 21, 2010 1:38 PM in reply to jinga

Um, with all due respect, I think they are more worried about the independent voters, who are not walking but sprinting to see who can be first off the SS Obama, and not the folks here with their heads in the sand.

The bill is a loser of monumental proportions and it is clear to everyone who doesn't reside in Cambridge, Berkeley or the UWS that the public isn't behind it. So you guys can go ahead and attempt to assert the wishes of a small extremist minority on the rest of the country (which most people recognize as fascism), or you can take a step back and figure out which half a loaf reconfiguration you can live with that the rest of the country will support (that's what happens in a representative democracy). You can pretend to live in the world that existed last week (actually, it really changed last summer during the town hall meetings) and rant about the pussies in Congress who have no spine, or you can recognize that landscape has changed and salvage something that gets you closer to your goal before your grip on power weakens even more (or disappears completely) in November. Those are your choices. Of course you can pick up your marbles and leave the sandbox in a huff and vow not to vote in November - which will only make the anti liberal tide look that much stronger.

You guys need an intervention, but I don't see anyone here who can think independently. Good luck.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

zonk

January 21, 2010 1:12 PM

Well, congrats, bill killers.

All done now.

You can wish upon your reconciliation or "new and better" bill stars all you want, that ain't happening.

Well done.

You sank a good bill.

Oh, you'll get your pyrrhic victory -- those feckless 'corporatist' Dems will get their whupping coming November -- you showed them!

...you showed them you've got all the same stubborn petulance of the moral majority, but with 30 years less patience.

My outrage right now is reserved solely and almost entirely for the purity activists that don't know a damn think about policy beyond what the lefty Limbaughs on line (who are policy neophytes themselves) tell them they should believe.

So, whatever.

I've got insurance and a relatively secure job backing it. Sucks to be many others, I guess, but what can I tell... your needs had to be sacrificed on the altar of purity.

Have fun..., I won't be joining you.

I'll get you started before I go, though....

Arise, wretched of the earth
Arise, convicts of hunger
Reason thunders in its crater
This is the eruption of the end
Of the past let us wipe the slate clean
Enslaved masses, arise, arise
The world is about to change its foundation
We are nothing, let us be all
This is the final struggle
Let us group together, and tomorrow
The Internationale
Will be the human race

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

EastWest

January 21, 2010 1:22 PM in reply to zonk

It's not a good bill. It's a bad bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

zonk

January 21, 2010 1:36 PM in reply to EastWest

Because?

And before you feed me talking points, please note that I work for a company that analyzes and publishes legislation, so I happen to be pretty well versed on the bill...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

EastWest

January 21, 2010 2:00 PM in reply to zonk

To name a few reasons (paraphrasing others, but it doesn't change the substance):

- The complete lack of a viable and competitive national exchange to control costs;
- The lack of more equitable funding mechanisms (e.g., an insurance policy's cost isn't necessarily related to its benefits - the "Cadillac" tax is too narrowly focused);
- The lack of decent subsidies and greater affordability, to ensure people aren't suffocated by the mandate;
- It continues the insurance industry's anti-trust exemption;
- The Stupak/Nelson abortion funding language needs to be eliminated;
- As written, reimportation of cheaper drugs is still prohibited;
- And the government is still specifically prohibited from negotiating better drug costs for Medicare.

This doesn't take into account items such as portability or the driving need to cover everybody instead of an arbitrarily-selected subset.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

zonk

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

- The complete lack of a viable and competitive national exchange to control costs;

A 'national exchange' would never work absent single payer, which wasn't going to pass anyway. Medicare already cannot get its GPCIs tweaked right - the best they've been able to do (and it was a achievement in of itself) was make sure all providers grumble equally. A "national exchange" is unworkable in a nation where the COL in San Francisco is so radically different than the COL in Des Moines. You can't just use a generic adjustment -- Medicare doesn't, its GPCI weights are actually an entire battery of factors -- because medical specialties don't ape them.... and all that before we even start talking about scarcity of care, critical access facilities, DSHs, etc.

- The lack of more equitable funding mechanisms (e.g., an insurance policy's cost isn't necessarily related to its benefits - the "Cadillac" tax is too narrowly focused);

Except it is. I grew up in a two-union household. I work in a non-union field (with employer sponsored care). That's anecdotal, to be sure, but the union bargained plans are most certainly worth the 'Cadillac' label. I agree - it sucks that unions were going to take a hit on the 'value' of a benefit, but the compromise that was formerly going to make it work (and was acceptable to the AFL-CIO, the SEIU was OK with senate passage) just pushed the enactment date of the tax back, it didn't kill or cut it.

- The lack of decent subsidies and greater affordability, to ensure people aren't suffocated by the mandate;

Nonsense. A cap of 8% and $12k OoP -- and that's a CAP, which actually wouldn't be the case for the majority of Americans -- is certainly better than the current caps of... infinity and infinity, no? We can quibble about those numbers, but can we at least agree that 8%/12K beats infinity/infinity?

- It continues the insurance industry's anti-trust exemption;

Which is a silly point. I'm not aware of any collusion claims against the industry. Yanking the antitrust exemption in the context of a health care bill was nothing more than a billy club, it would have no real effect -- beyond actually harming the insured in the short-term, much the same well the baby bells sucked during the first few years after the AT&T trust bust.

I'm not in favor of preserving the exemption - in fact, take it away -- but you shouldn't do it in context of this bill. All you do is create another headache and problem that you have to solve in the same bill.

- The Stupak/Nelson abortion funding language needs to be eliminated;

One point I can agree on - though - the senate bill language was better than the Stupak language.

- As written, reimportation of cheaper drugs is still prohibited;

Which was going to be the case since last spring. It would have been impossible to take on PhRMA, the AARP, the AMA, and AHIP all at once. Nothing gets any worse in this bill... and in fact, purely from a beneficiary perspective, by virtue of filling in (partially and incrementally) the Part D donut hole, a valid argument can be made that drug coverage is IMPROVED for beneficiaries... even if only Medicare beneficiaries.

- And the government is still specifically prohibited from negotiating better drug costs for Medicare.

Ditto above.

...and - none of these things make it a "BAD" bill, and even if we accept all your points, I have a real hard time seeing how even someone in agreement with them can say they make things worse.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

EastWest

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

Oh, and I forgot to tell you: I'm so very impressed that you were on a working group and all that. I'm just thinking you should have paid more attention or something, you know?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

zonk

January 21, 2010 2:32 PM in reply to EastWest

And you should get out of philosophy and ideology class for a while... because things are usually more complicated than partisan talking points... especially purity partisan talking points.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

allen bukoff

January 21, 2010 1:40 PM in reply to zonk

Zonk, wow. Where did you get the idea that health care reform is dead now that the not-health-care-reform-and-not-even-close Senate health care reform bill is dead? How uncreative. How unimaginative. Shake up that mind-set, Zonk. You're just going to give up now that you've got your real fighting spirit on? Health care got screwed up and sold-out in the Senate! That's dead, let's do it right, let's do it quickly, and let's do it with real political power and not negotiated capitulation. It AIN'T dead. There are many feasible health care reform possibilities from here forward. Quit pouting.

Just one example of alternative/imaginative thinking, from Ezra Klein:
"Democrats could scrap the legislation and start over in the reconciliation process. But not to re-create the whole bill. If you go that route, you admit the whole thing seemed too opaque and complex and compromised. You also admit the limitations of the reconciliation process. So you make it real simple: Medicare buy-in between 50 and 65. Medicaid expands up to 200 percent of poverty with the federal government funding the whole of the expansion. Revenue comes from a surtax on the wealthy. And that's it. No cost controls. No delivery-system reforms. Nothing that makes the bill long or complex or unfamiliar. Medicare buy-in had more than 51 votes as recently as a month ago. The Medicaid change is simply a larger version of what's already passed both chambers. This bill would be shorter than a Danielle Steel novel. It could take effect before the 2012 election.
If health-care reform that preserves the private market is too complex and requires too many dirty deals with the existing industries, then cut both out. But get it done. Democrats have a couple of different options for passing health-care reform this year. But not passing health-care reform should not be seen as one of them."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/the_other_health-care_reform_o.html

Let's not give up, yet, Zonk. Let's double down and get creative. Let's forge ahead with real health care reform.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

zonk

January 21, 2010 2:05 PM in reply to allen bukoff

Well, I do have a bit of insight into this.

I work for a large legal publisher -- we're not a partisan shop, you'll never see us quoted by think tanks or politicians, we make no judgments in our analysis, at least... we are people with ideologies, of course, but we are fanatics about keeping any subjective judgments out of what we publish because we just sell to hospitals, providers, attorneys, CPAs, HR staff, et al.

We've had a team together for the last 6 months -- more than 20 people, including analysts (attorneys and even former hill staffers that used to write legislation), production people, technical people -- that was meeting weekly to track status. We also have 'reporters' on the hill -- not reporters in the classic sense -- again, not the people you'll ever see on TV or read in the paper; but rather, people that talk to staffers not to get a 'scoop', but to get us early drafts of amendments, committee reports, etc.

We've been "pre-writing" since October - we try to get the bill text AND analysis up within 48 hours of passage. Since Thanksgiving, we've been meeting twice a week. Since December - 3 times a week.

Just got off our "last" call -- we just disbanded the working group.

I've been with the company for 12 years (and we've been in business for 9 times that).

We don't disband legislation working groups if there's any real chance of legislation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

UHD

January 21, 2010 2:11 PM in reply to zonk

The "corporatist" Dems, by definition, never wanted HCR.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

zuch

January 21, 2010 1:14 PM

Will Rogers was right.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

hewhohasnoname

January 21, 2010 1:17 PM

Contact your Representative about this, or contact Nancy Pelosi:

http://www.speaker.gov/contact/

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

masanf

January 21, 2010 1:18 PM

And yet more pathetic delusion and tone deafness from the commenters here. THere is a reason they can't get the fucking votes for this thing: IT'S UNPOPULAR AS HELL. Continuing to try and find ways to game the system is stupid in about a million different ways. Almost as stupid as claiming not passing this thing will have more electoral consequence than ramming through an unpopular bill using some sort of reconciliation.

For all the bullshit talk of a "reality based community", the heads of those on the left seem to be made of fucking concrete.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

EastWest

January 21, 2010 1:21 PM

mcjoan over at Kos nails it:

(Pelosi) can't give them a bill without a fix, and those fixes aren't just Ben Nelson like whims, they are substantive improvements to the bill--a national exchange, more equitable funding mechanisms, better subsidies and greater affordability, an end to the anti-trust exemption--all thinks that will strengthen the actual policy behind this bill.

and

It's good to see the House stand up for itself and to assert the need to fix this bill. It is more than within the realm of possibility to do this bill and to do it better if Dem leaders show the will to do so. That might mean telling Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu (who really should not be allowed to go in front of cameras) to take a flying leap--we'll pass these important reform without you. So be it. It would be good to see some of the anger and pressure where it should be focused, on the obstructionist ConservaDems.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Zell

January 21, 2010 1:30 PM in reply to EastWest

(Pelosi) can't give them a bill without a fix

Yes, actually, she can. She may not want to, and they may not vote for it. But she can.

What she cannot do, actually, is to give them some magical different bill that has already passed the Senate, because no such bill exists.

What she also cannot do is get fifty-seven Democratic Senators, two independent Senators, and one Republican Senator to vote for some fantasy bill that you and I and mcjoan and Barney Frank would want in our wildest dreams.

That's reality. Pretending that a Republican Senator will vote for anything even vaguely related to health care reform is absurd nonsensical fantasy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

zuch

January 21, 2010 1:23 PM

Will Rogers was right.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Beth Partin

January 21, 2010 1:25 PM

I just called Polis (my rep) and asked him not to give up. When I called Pelosi's office and asked if they take comments from non-constituents, they sent me to voice mail. I may call back tomorrow and make my comment before telling them where I'm from. My comment boils down to, "Please replace your backbone."

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

dem4life

January 21, 2010 1:26 PM

Pelosi: There Aren't Enough Votes To Pass The Senate Bill

Oh no, wow let's wait another year for the republipigs, maybe by then their patriotic duty will kick in for all the Americans that don't have health care and unfortunately can't afford it.

I mean the under employed the laid off by no fault of their own, the sick, the needy.

WTF happenedd to the catholic mission ......HELP THE FREAKIN NEEDY. WAS THAT WRITTEN BY THE POPE TO REFER TO THE INNOCENT ONES???????? THE REAL LITTLE ONES THAT CAN'T HELP TEMSELVES.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

zuch

January 21, 2010 1:30 PM

I'm starting to agree with the Teapartiers: Maybe we need to dissolve the Union. The Red states can go eff themselves, and we'll get on with what we need to do.

Cheers,

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Noah

January 21, 2010 1:30 PM

Jesus, Obama! The guy is professionally spineless! Here he is taking the day off to get in front of the cameras to talk about big banks when, if he just wanted it more and knew how to THROW A PUNCH, could just get in there and FIGHT for what he 'claims' to believe in. And then, as long as he's not physically denied by those insiders who care only about placating nefarious insurance ponzi schemers (Rahm, Geithener, almost certainly Patrick Gaspard, perhaps Samantha Power) we can finally have a healthcare system a little bit like Switzerland's. Dammit, why won't this president just DO SOMETHING.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Steve LaBonne

January 21, 2010 1:37 PM in reply to Noah

It's too late. After his nonexistent coattails were exposed in Mass., exactly zero Congresscritters on either side of the aisle are going to give a rat's about what he wants. His influence was a wasting asset, and he wasted it completely.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

jeremy

January 21, 2010 1:31 PM

Wrote my congressman this morning.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=261496736325

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Chesire111

January 21, 2010 1:52 PM in reply to jeremy

I sent this one to my congressman yesterday...

Dear Congressman Delahunt,

I am a Democrat registered to vote in Barnstable. I, like many others was deeply disappointed by the election of Scott Brown to fill the Senate seat formerly held by Edward Kennedy. Although I had some time to brace myself for the loss of a longtime Democratically held seat, I was unprepared for your reaction to defeat.

Martha Coakley did not lose an election in Massachusetts because Democrats have been behaving too boldly, she lost because President Obama and the Democratic Congress have been too timid and unwilling to fight for what the people sent them to Washington to accomplish. Consequently, I was dumbfounded to hear that you favor an “incremental” approach to health care reform.

Too much effort has been invested, too many compromises made in exchange for nothing to take yet another step backwards. Now is not the time to retreat, now is the time to fight. Support the bill passed by the Senate, bring it to the floor for an up or down vote and amend its shortcomings later. If it fails to garner enough support, then consider getting whatever we can incrementally, but please don’t quit on us! Anything less is throwing out the baby and keeping the bath water.

Surrendering yet again to an obstructionist minority party is not only morally wrong, but a sure route to defeat at the polls. Our party has been entrusted by the American people with power in order to change our country for the better. As a constituent and active voter, if you fail to support a House vote on the Senate Health Reform bill you can be assured that not only will you permanently lose my vote, but I will actively support any and every primary challenge against you and will persuade family and friends to withdraw their support from your continued tenure as our elected representative in Washington.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

dem4life

January 21, 2010 2:09 PM in reply to Chesire111

You forgot to pu we don't want none of the klns tea party movement in MA.

Keep that mess in the dirty uneducated southern districts

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

hologram5

January 21, 2010 1:38 PM

If they give up this quickly then they are truly spineless as some republicans and political anylists have called them. Come on people, don't give up yet.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

ilovebacon

January 21, 2010 1:59 PM in reply to hologram5

Not in fight in them. So it seems.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Cool Blue Reason

January 21, 2010 1:39 PM

Why is she saying a single damn thing about what any member of the House thought about the Senate bill prior to Wednesday?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

WiliamWalace

January 21, 2010 1:51 PM

Sounds like Obama shifting focus towards jobs. New slogan should be "Change, from topic to topic"

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

dem4life

January 21, 2010 2:07 PM in reply to WiliamWalace

cute!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

darkrhyme

January 21, 2010 2:02 PM

Without spines, how do they manage to walk upright? Truly miraculous.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

lovetoteach

January 21, 2010 2:07 PM

Obama told folks to get this done by August! The Republicans told the democrats "why the rush?" Then August 'happened.' Now do you see why he wanted it done before then? But our lovely Democrats said "we won't be rushed" led by who? You guessed it: the Republicans. Our lovely Democrats said we will do this our way regardless of the fact that the public wanted certain things and wanted it done yesterday. Well, well, well. Christmas eve came and they fell all over themselves getting to a microphone to pat themselves on the back. All of this time, the public was losing patience and giving the Republicans the opportunity to say things like "this will never pass" by John Boehner. Or "this will be his "waterloo" by Jim DeMint. Well, well, well. Guess what? Scott Brown wins one seat in the senate and you would have thought that God All Mighty swapped the minority party with the majority party before they realized it. Scott says no healthcare vote and guess again: the majority decides they are too damned mad at their own party members in the senate to get done what can be done. Stunning! Just Stunning!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Equityval

January 21, 2010 2:18 PM in reply to lovetoteach

You're so right. Why give the public any time to actually read and understand the bill? Why give them a chance to discuss it and figure out if there was anything in it for them or if it was the best way to solve the problem? The people on this board and the folks like them in Congress clearly have ALL the answers, right.

If you take only one thing away from this exercise, it ought to be that hubris won't get you very far. You have are reaping what you have sowed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

drury

January 21, 2010 2:12 PM

There's only two words to describe what needs to happen: RECONCILIATION. COURAGE.

Take a page out of Karl Rove's book for once and throw some elbow grease around and create the CHANGE that we all voted for in '08.

How to do that: Change the bill in the House by strengthening it and making it something that the likes of someone like Dennis Kucinich could vote for. Then, send it back to the Senate and reconcile the damn thing. Time to pull out our LARGE majority and show the voters of this country that Dems CAN actually show some conviction once in a while. Any by the way, what a great time to show some conviction. Hell, you're already under the gun, so you might as well take a chance and show some real courage.

Or maybe I'm wrong, and Americans really do want yet another 20-year rule of health care by the insurance companies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Rich in NJ

January 21, 2010 2:21 PM

Yeah, I'll continue to support these fatuous clowns.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

ilovebacon

January 21, 2010 2:23 PM

Does anyone else notice that TPM headlines are getting disturbingly similar to the hyperbolic, NY Post-like headlines? Time to hire sober headline editors?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

nova voter

January 21, 2010 2:25 PM

cool. i wasn't plugged into politics when HCR got destroyed in 1994. at least now i can say i was there for 2010.

anyway, i STILL can't believe, though, that people are bitching and moaning about DEMOCRATS in the way that they are. this was, is, and will always be, at the feet of obstructionist, know-nothing republicans. THEY are the ones who, in BOTH the senate and the house, have refused to negotiate in good faith (see, e.g., the "gang of six"), the ones who have refused to bargain in good faith (see, in particular, olympia snowe), the ones who have, quite frankly, refused even to join in a dialogue about getting people insured and reigning in costs (see, e.g., jim "waterloo" demint, or specter's discussion of the republican party's strategy from the outset of obama's presidency). seriously -- think about it: there is only ONE republican in EITHER house who voted for HCR, and that guy is a sure-thing one-termer from a deep blue district.

did dems make tactical mistakes by trying to engage republicans? maybe. but they weren't mistakes made with a black heart. and quite frankly, i'm pretty cynical, and even i can't believe the flat, cold refusal of EVERY republican (except, sort of, that cao fellow in the house) to even TRY to help the country and its citizens. so i can excuse, perhaps, the effort put into the "gang of six" (particularly given lieberman's intransigence).

what i cannot excuse, nor will i ever, is the intentional treachery of the republican party (see, e.g., judd gregg's memo about how to delay the bill to death), their betrayal of the american people, their conscious fucking of the least (or, perhaps, more accurately, the "not fattest") among us.

if i believed in such things as god and pearly gates, if i were harry reid, or even ben nelson, i would feel confident defending my efforts and conduct in this matter before those pearly gates. i would NOT feel so confident if i were jim demint or john boehner or eric cantor or olympia snowe or even scott brown or any of the other republicans on the hill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

This is Hilarious!

January 22, 2010 11:55 AM in reply to nova voter

Hmmm, you'd conduct in front of the pearly gates, but won't even put it on C-Span as Obama promised (no less than 8 times!) Get a clue...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Robertson One

January 21, 2010 2:26 PM

ARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!

What on earth is wrong with the House?! Why do they think that time is on their side? Why do they think that, by waiting, they'll get a more liberal bill when history proves just the opposite? The only hope is to pass something and then keep adding improvements, as has happened to Medicare.

They need to move, move simply, and move fast.

My suggestion:

The House agrees to pass the Senate bill if the Senate will do the following four* things in Budget Reconciliation:

1) Drop the Nebraska bribe and any other ugly special deals.**

2) Adjust the Caddilac health care tax as had been agreed to in earlier negotiations, so as not to hurt ordinary - and especially union - workers.

3) Bump the Medicaid assistance closer to the House's bill.

5) Create a Medicare buy-in for the 55-65 set.

It's easy to understand, it tacks the bill to the left a bit, it helps more people, and, with Joe Biden, there are probably sufficient votes to do this in the Senate. Other fixes can be worked out in the years before the big provisions kick in.

They need to MOVE!

* I am assuming that removing the health insurance industry's anti-trust exemption is not budget related. If the case can be made that it is, I'd add a fifth item to the list of demands.

** Item 1 could probably pass in the full Senate, never mind reconciliation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Equityval

January 21, 2010 2:26 PM

OK folks, that dastardly Lincoln is up to more mischief. Who wants to start the hissy fit on this topic?

Three Senate Democrats Join Effort to Block EPA Carbon Rules
2010-01-21 18:04:19.372 GMT

By Simon Lomax
Jan. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Three Senate Democrats today joined a Republican effort to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under existing law.
Democrats Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska said they co-sponsored a motion that seeks to overturn the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health and should be regulated.
The agency has proposed regulations for new cars, power plants, oil refineries and factories that could begin in March.
“This command-and-control approach is our worst option for reducing the emissions blamed for climate change,” said Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, who wrote the measure.
“Congress must be given time to develop an appropriate and more responsible solution.”
Murkowski decided today to seek a disapproval motion of the EPA’s Dec. 7 finding instead of trying to block the agency’s regulations by amending legislation now before the Senate. To pass the Senate, the disapproval motion would require 51 votes, fewer than the 60 required to amend legislation being debated this week to raise the U.S. government’s debt ceiling.
Lincoln said she will support Murkowski’s disapproval motion to block “heavy-handed EPA regulation.”

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

hoehneb

January 21, 2010 2:29 PM

Holey moley, GET CREATIVE PEOPLE!

Something that has baffled me in this whole mess is why 59 (58, 57 etc,.) votes can't "win." Here's what I mean: On important issues, ALLOW the GOP to filibuster, and then, using all the media tools at their disposal, shame them for doing it. The one last glimmer of hope I have in the American people is their innate sense of fairness. We simply haven't used the tools at our disposal to goad them into coming to the conclusion that bringing any and all legislation to a halt because of parliamentary trick, is just freakin' wrong.

If the Democratic party, and president Obama, shone the most brilliant spotlight possible on the process- calling it, time and time again, just what it is- a deliberate attempt to thwart the will of the majority vote holders. The message might just sink in! Put the feed from the floor on the internet, hire a bunch of smart, funny staffers to do shifts mocking the process, pointing out misstatements or hypocrisy, and generally doing everything in their power to make buffoons of those holding the floor. Run angry clock across the face of the video, counting how long the shameful process has been going on. If that fails to go viral a few weeks in, I'll give up chocolate for a year. FOX news 'em!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

human

January 21, 2010 2:32 PM

Regardless of how good Obama's banking proposals are, it's all going to be meaningless to the voters if he lets HCR die or pretends that passing some half-assed smaller measure is going to please his base. So Medicare is expanded to age 50, and that helps the sick and dying uninsured millions under 50 how exactly?
You can't sweep it under the rug, or move on to "jobs"(how they pass anything worthwhile in the Senate on jobs is beyond me, considering the HCR and stimulus fiasco)--the GIANT STINKING FAILURE of HCR cannot be swept under the rug, and the voters aren't going to forget.
Obama and the "leadership" need to get this done and get it done now, and shouldn't be wasting time on other issues in a futile effort to make the voters forget. The health care crisis is too big, and you can't escape responsibility by passing some half-measure designed to buy off a certain segment of voters. Ever consider that many seniors have children and grandchildren under 50 who are sick and can't afford healthcare?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

hoehneb

January 21, 2010 2:43 PM

@equityval

"Why give the public any time to actually read and understand the bill?"

That's toal BS. The provisions of the bill were very clearly spelled out at every step in the process and the actual bill itself was available to anyone who wanted to check it out:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/show

It's folks like Betsy McCaughy, who deliberately (to be charitable) misconstrued the text of the bill (she was, amongst other things, a sower of the "death Panel" meme) that gave people the illusion that it was rife with hidden "gotchas." And you know what? This charade worked because the so called "liberal media" are a bunch of effin wimps!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

IndyLinda

January 21, 2010 2:49 PM

FWIW, Chuck Todd and Jonathan Chait, two people whom I respect, both seem to think there's good reason to believe this is a negotiating ploy. After all, Pelosi says the bill needs changes and there aren't the votes for it "for now." I don't know if I believe it or not, but I'd like to. She may be trying to get the Senate to commit to allowing changes through reconciliation and pushing the Senate to agree to actually take another vote with a 51 majority, and not just shunt all the tough stuff onto the House.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AnswerFrog

January 21, 2010 2:52 PM

Is TPM right? I like JMM, and he is incredibly astute about politics, which makes me extremely worried when he says this means they are quitting.

But Kos and HuffPo have different takes than TPM:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/21/828243/-Pelosi-Says-No-to-Senate-Bill,-But-No-Need-to-Panic

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/pelosi-votes-arent-there_n_431430.html

Anyway, don't let up folks. Don't let these cowards off the hook. Keep pressing them for a solution.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

lousgirl84

January 21, 2010 3:47 PM in reply to AnswerFrog

Thanks friend. I needed that. I hope this is true. I can't believe that they don't understand the severe consequences if a bill is not passed.

Keep making the phone calls.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Icarus

January 21, 2010 2:54 PM

Can't the Dems change the rules -- the nuclear option -- and ditch the filibuster rule altogether? Seems to me, if they had the guts they could do that, but are aftraid they may need to resort to a filibuster in the future. Poor Dems, they never had a lick of sense.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AnswerFrog

January 21, 2010 3:01 PM

Off topic, but shows you the wisdom of Mass. election:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-miller/test-your-understanding-o_b_430778.html

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

hoehneb

January 21, 2010 3:48 PM

@icarus. They could... but house senate rule changes require 2/3rds vote: i.e. 67 votes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

JohnnyJohnny

January 21, 2010 4:05 PM in reply to hoehneb

Old filibuster rule WAS 67 votes. It was LOWERED to 60 vote.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

hoehneb

January 21, 2010 4:31 PM in reply to JohnnyJohnny

Well, great. Thanks. (Another think to smack our collective foreheads over and say "DOH!" for not changing.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

tropicgirl

January 21, 2010 5:59 PM

All the ideas here are way too late. Hoax-Change never had the intent to reform and neither did the fake progressives.

Bush passed EVERYTHING WITHOUT a 60 vote rule. Just google it...

We now know it was another hoax.

I believe it was not so much to give political cover to the party, but TO GIVE COVER FROM THE LOBBYISTS. Think about it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

jim43

January 21, 2010 6:57 PM

Americans want action on health care, not excuses. The only way to get a true reform bill is to use the simple 51-seat majority Democrats have in the Senate.

http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Mr. Zed

January 21, 2010 8:33 PM

I am 54 years old and have always voted democratic. I have never missed a single election on the local state or federal level. Some of the democrats in the House are worried about voting for the Senate bill. I admit that the Senate bill is a long way from perfect. However, it is a start. If some form of health care reform does not pass, I probably will not bother voting in 2010. I've spoken to several of my friends and my feelings are not unusual. The democrats in the House should not be so worried about voting for the Senate bill and be more worried about the Democratic base not showing up next election.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

mrmc1973

January 22, 2010 9:14 AM

By blocking health care reform, republicans are willfully killing more Americans per year than Al-Qaeda could ever hope to.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

This is Hilarious!

January 22, 2010 11:58 AM in reply to mrmc1973

Yes, that makes as much sense as saying that pro-choice people are killing more people than the terrorists. Both statements are totally delusional.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

mrmc1973

January 23, 2010 11:30 AM in reply to This is Hilarious!

No it’s true, republicans are worse for America than Al-Qaeda. I would be the first to know if I was delusional. They would rather pander to corporate lobbyists than pass any legislation to improve the American quality of life. Health care reform would cut into billions of dollars in annual profits (the dollars that fund the lobbyists), so we can’t have it. If they cared at all, they would have a viable alternative plan, but they don’t. They could help stop the health care horror stories and death panels that have existed for 30 years now, but there is no profit in it. The numbers of people who die every year without insurance is staggering. I recently lost a good friend who died of a heart attack because he didn’t have insurance and didn’t think he could afford to go to the emergency room when he had been having chest pains for hours. Does the fact that republicans willfully wish to block progress that would cut into those numbers make them murderous? MAYBE not, but it’s just a matter of perception isn’t it? I mean, they would rather fund the dropping of bombs on brown people thousands of miles away (while our economy drives towards a cliff and Al-Qaeda becomes even stronger), than help AMERICANS receive testing and treatment that could save their lives. G W told people that the emergency room was their health insurance. That’s how much humanity they have within them. And on top of it all, they have to nerve to claim to be Christians. Voting against abortion does not make you a Christian. If Christ had a grave, he would be rolling over in it faster than Ted Kennedy. But you know what? I take it all back. All of that corruption in Washington was sent there by the American people. Every official there now was either elected or appointed by someone who was elected. If we are going to be so undereducated and ignorant that we continually shoot ourselves in the foot with our own votes, then I guess we don’t deserve health care reform. We don’t deserve equal rights, advocacy against Wall Street, or anything else as clearly irrelevant. If the wolf gets in his stupid truck and drives to your house to knock on the door, and you let him in, that’s on you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

This is Hilarious!

January 23, 2010 7:42 PM in reply to mrmc1973

And now I'm certain that you're delusional...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Tosh

June 5, 2010 10:54 PM

By the way, if you read Pelosi's comments carefully, she's not ruling out Plan B, only straight-up passage of the Senate bill with no further changes.

And if you really want Plan B, recognize that FIRST the amendments need to be voted on by BOTH houses, THEN the House can vote on the Senate bill. (This does not cause technical problems- Obama merely has to sign the Senate bill moments before he signs the amendment package.) Nobody does, or should, trust the Senate to "fix it later".

Or of course, you could just go on punching hippies instead of being serious.

m65 kamagra

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

TPMDC

Pelosi: There Aren't Enough Votes To Pass The Senate Bill

Rachel Slajda | January 21, 2010, 11:34AM

Spread the word and support this article. Share it on Digg!

Read More

Share

Send to a friend!

Comments (356) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (3)

Leave a comment

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Top News

TPMDC

Pelosi: There Aren't Enough Votes To Pass The Senate Bill

Rachel Slajda | January 21, 2010, 11:34AM

Spread the word and support this article. Share it on Digg!

Read More

Share

Send to a friend!

Comments (356) | Join the Conversation!

h2.commentshed a { color:#990000; } Recommend Recommend (3)

Leave a comment

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Top News

Recommend Recommend (3)