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?

johncmccutchen@att.net

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 johncmccutchen@att.net

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?

johncmccutchen@att.net

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?

johncmccutchen@att.net

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 johncmccutchen@att.net

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 johncmccutchen@att.net

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?

johncmccutchen@att.net

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

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!

Other Stories Featured at TPMDC

Down And Out In Florida: Charlie Crist Getting Demolished In The Latest Poll

Hairy Down In Florida: Crist Suggests Rubio Waxes His Back (VIDEO)

AHIP Spending $1M To Defend Rate Hikes

Wistful Cornyn: I'm 'Honor-Bound' To Stick With Crist Endorsement

Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (3)

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!

Other Stories Featured at TPMDC

Down And Out In Florida: Charlie Crist Getting Demolished In The Latest Poll

Hairy Down In Florida: Crist Suggests Rubio Waxes His Back (VIDEO)

AHIP Spending $1M To Defend Rate Hikes

Wistful Cornyn: I'm 'Honor-Bound' To Stick With Crist Endorsement

Join the Conversation!

h2.commentshed a { color:#990000; } Recommend Recommend (3)

Recommend Recommend (3)