TPMDC
Reid Speaks On The Push To Pass Public Option Via Reconciliation
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
Share
Send to a friend!
Over the past week, senators -- 18 so far -- have been signing on to a letter urging Majority Leader Harry Reid to pass a public option using reconciliation. Today, Reid finally spoke on the matter, releasing a statement through a spokesman.
"If a decision is made to use reconciliation to advance health care, Senator Reid will work with the White House, House and members of his caucus in an effort to craft a public option that can overcome procedural obstacles and secure enough votes," the statement reads.
Such an effort would need at least 50 senators on board to be successful. The letter got a boost yesterday when Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the third-ranking member of Senate leadership, signed on.
Reid's statement also pointed out that Reid is a supporter of the public option.
"Senator Reid has always and continues to support the public option as a way to drive down costs and create competition. That is why he included the measure in his original health care proposal."
Late update: A leadership aide tells TPMDC that several hurdles have to be cleared before leaders try to use reconciliation.
One, they'd need the votes. Two, they'd need the votes in the House -- where a bill would have to pass first. Three, in order to get those votes, they'd need a big push from the White House which, the aide says, has been "circumspect." And finally, the parliamentarian would have to approve the use of reconciliation, a tool for budget matters, for passing a health care measure.
Later Update: Reid told his local press this weekend that reconciliation is a go.
Comments (74) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Lestatdelc
February 19, 2010 4:38 PM
Seems it took 12+ months, 18+ Senators and a White House signal to help Reid locate a proto-vertebrae.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 19, 2010 4:49 PM in reply to Lestatdelc
Reid included the public option in the Senate bill he drafted when the Finance bill didn't include one and the White House openly worried that it was a mistake.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 19, 2010 5:35 PM in reply to FreeRider
Not only did they worry it was a mistake, it actually was a mistake. All it did was enable Lieberman to humiliate the rest of the caucus and frustrate progressives everywhere. If the PO died last summer, it never should have been resurrected.
If they end up passing a great bill with PO in the next month, I'll cheer til I'm hoarse and clap til I bleed. I will take back everything mean I ever said about Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loudprogressive
February 19, 2010 6:27 PM in reply to philogratis
Reid's mistake was listening to Rahm when he told him to "cut a deal" with Lieberman which apparently meant giving Lieberman veto power over what goes in and out the bill. Hate it or love it, the public option (which continues to be HIGHLY popular) goes hand-in-hand with momentum for Democrats. The leadership gutted it and effectively turned the senate bill into a bailout for the insurance industry - and as a result the rethugs took MA. THATS how severely it can impact Dem turnout and motivation. If, after all this ranging, they pull through and end up including the public option it could dramatically change the Dems prospects in the fall.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
elle a
February 19, 2010 7:04 PM in reply to loudprogressive
lieberman was threatening to vote with the republicans. what the frack would you have expected them to do?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 19, 2010 7:15 PM in reply to elle a
You don't expect him to have any answers/alternatives, do you?
They're not into solutions, just bitching about how everything the Democrats do is wrong and spinning tall tales about Rahm being the anti-christ.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loudprogressive
February 19, 2010 7:37 PM in reply to elle a
MAKE HIM stand on the senate floor and actually do it. The reason why filibusters have gotten so out of control is Reid allows just the threat of a filibuster to kill bills. If Lieberman knew he'd have to get the cot and dictionary out, and that Reid was willing to keep rescheduling a vote and making him get that cot and dictionary out then maybe he might hesitate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 19, 2010 8:57 PM in reply to loudprogressive
Okay, since this has only been gone over, in detail, about a million fucking times for anyone who purports to be paying attention, I'm going to take this slow, so maybe there's a chance it will penetrate.
That whole roll out the cots and make them talk thing?
It's. Not. How. It. Really. Works. Except. in. Hollywood.
All the minority has to do is keep one (1) person on the floor at all times. All that person has to do is sit quietly and, whenever they try to move a bill to a vote, he merely has to suggest the absence of a quorum. That leads to a roll call when the good guys have to assemble at least 50 people on the floor to say "present." Then the majority leader tries to take it to a vote, the Lone Obstructionist suggests the absence of a quorum and it starts the whole thing over again.
The Lone Obstructionist doesn't have to hold the floor. He can be spelled or switched off by other Lone Obstructionists at will. And the majority still has to assemble a quorum every time he suggests the absence of a quorum.
The whole reading from the dictionary or the bible or Immanuel Kant or whatever thing is optional. It's allowed if they want to get some C-SPAN face time or media attention, but if they want to duck responsiblity, it's totally optional.
So, sorry, I know it's a critical part of the Firebagger Blame the Democrats for the Republicans' obstructionism mythology, and, of course, the "they're secretly in league with the Corporate Illuminati" conspiracy theorists, but the whole "make them talk" option is about as grounded in reality as Saddam's WMD's and all that great intel we tortured out of the t'rr'sts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
erica
February 19, 2010 11:05 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I believe the term du jour is "lucrescenti."
Otherwise, thank you for the rundown. It may have been covered in detail before but this is the first time I've seen it described so clearly. It's helpful to know (and be able to explain to friends) why the filibuster isn't all we'd like to believe it could be.
Please consider posting this description as a separate entity so it could be a reference.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
February 21, 2010 9:19 PM in reply to erica
Same here. Thanks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loudprogressive
February 19, 2010 11:19 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
omg!! Forcing them to filibuster means they can switch people the senate floor! eek! God you DLC dimwits are timid. No wonder you always concede every position in search of the "center" (which is usually coincidentally the lobbyists' sweet spot). Aside from your obnoxious whining its funny that you resort to using the "illumanti" to make lame ad hominem attacks.
The fact is Reid can force them to "put up or shut up" and keep the senate in all-night sessions (doing continuous roll calls to keep them in their seats) to force an up or down vote. He's done it before: http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/07/reid-to-force-senate-into-all-night.html
and it was incredibly stupid of him not to do the same with the Senate healthcare bill after Lieberman threatened to filibuster not just the public option but the medicare by-in he himself once supported. Clearly there was no way the House would vote for a bill without the public option or medicare buy-in. Instead Reid listened to Rahm and give in to Lieberman, and now we're back to square one. Rahm's got egg on his face from the last round - I doubt he's going to try and mess it up this time, and the public option has the unique position of being the singularly most popular reform. Its prospects look incredibly strong going forward but I'll leave you clueless DLCers to harp on the illuminati and post soup recipes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 20, 2010 12:41 AM in reply to loudprogressive
I actually don't understand how this maneuver works. The parliamentary procedure described does not force the Republicans to talk... it forces the DEMOCRATS to talk(read the article). Then the article says that the Dems would invoke continous quorum calls... but how does that force Republicans to the floor? The Republicans don't want a quorum.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 20, 2010 12:42 AM in reply to loudprogressive
I actually don't understand how this maneuver works. The parliamentary procedure described does not force the Republicans to talk... it forces the DEMOCRATS to talk(read the article). Then the article says that the Dems would invoke continous quorum calls... but how does that force Republicans to the floor? The Republicans don't want a quorum.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 19, 2010 5:36 PM in reply to FreeRider
Not only did they worry it was a mistake, it actually was a mistake. All it did was enable Lieberman to humiliate the rest of the caucus and frustrate progressives everywhere. If the PO died last summer, it never should have been resurrected.
If they end up passing a great bill with PO in the next month, I'll cheer til I'm hoarse and clap til I bleed. I will take back everything mean I ever said about Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
claytoncharles
February 20, 2010 8:31 AM in reply to Lestatdelc
right on
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsdc007
February 19, 2010 4:43 PM
Don't worry. Reid has a way of turning gold into dust, so I'm not holding my breath. Come November, we'll still have no healthcare reform, and Reid may be looking for a job as a lobbyist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
concerned parent
February 19, 2010 6:06 PM in reply to jsdc007
He will be looking for work in november, but who would hire him as a lobbyist? Maybe he can serve drink at a casino in las vegas, about all he would be good for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
musgrove
February 19, 2010 4:46 PM
Getting 50 is possible, and Reid wouldnt of said anything if he didnt already think he could get them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
February 19, 2010 6:20 PM in reply to musgrove
I think he wouldn't say this unless he thought he had a genuine shot at it.
He may have such a shot now (probably does), but the insurance companies could go just crazy enough as to rattle a few people. Eh? Here's hoping it don't work for the bastards.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
February 19, 2010 7:30 PM in reply to Overreach THIS!
The insurance monopoly has done a good job of hopting itself in the foot with the massive increases in premiums following on the victory they believed they'd got.
One wonders if instead they're consciously conspiring to get the public option enacted into law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loudprogressive
February 19, 2010 7:50 PM in reply to JNagarya
Yep. I think that 39% rate hike in CA was a wake up call for more than a few Dems. Imagine if they signed the bill complete with the mandate and all the insurance companies started jacking rates 39% the first year in...the rethugs would have a guaranteed winning campaign issue and the Dems would be left defending an unpopular bill even their base didn't support because it lacked a public option. Without the PO as a cost control the healthcare bill is a suicide pill for the Dems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
February 20, 2010 1:14 AM in reply to loudprogressive
I was thinking all this over myself, and it struck me, "Say the Dems are maneuvering toward the PO and the insurance companies go just nuts, pitch a hairy fit? Does their going bananas change the Dems need to pass this in light of the 39% increases"
Maybe it doesn't. Maybe the Dems tell the ins. dudes, "Sorry to hear you're so upset, but we believe you'll get used to this and it's good law since everybody wins."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loudprogressive
February 19, 2010 6:31 PM in reply to musgrove
Schumer taking a stap at it is a major hint the Dems are getting behind this. He wouldn't be extending his political capital on this unless he had a good reason to believe it was possible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
February 19, 2010 6:40 PM in reply to loudprogressive
Oh baloney. Reid is doing this because he thinks it will help him get liberal votes in November. He isn't doing it because he thinks it already has fifty votes. If he only mentions things after he knows they have the votes, why did he include the public option the first time around? It didn't have the votes. In fact, the wrangling over the public option is part of the reason the bill was finished last year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loudprogressive
February 19, 2010 6:52 PM in reply to masanf
Even if I bought your lazy argument that Reid is only doing this to "get liberal votes in November" that doesn't explain away what I said about Schumer backing it. If Reid was doing as some kind of political stunt just to scrap up electoral votes then he would scheduled a symbolic vote for the PO in the fall, when they were trying to get 60 votes, knowing it would fail anyway. He's not going to get any liberal votes for saying nice things about programs he never brings to a vote. The fact is we're moving significantly closer to the public option being used through reconciliation any way you cut it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 19, 2010 4:48 PM
Boy, it's just amazing how these totally unrelated, totally uncoordinated, spontaneous announcements and signals keep rolling out as if they were on some kind of a schedule. Which of course, is crazy talk. No, we must take each of them at face value and use them as the launching point for resuming the same damnfool fratricidal fight we were having before Scott Brown's election temporarily shocked us into awareness we had real enemies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alex39
February 19, 2010 5:00 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I absolutely agree. But before I attack you, I need to know where you stand. Is this announcement
1) proof that someone in Washington lacks male gonads.
Or, 2) a long-delayed sign that people are beginning to understand "what I've been saying all along."
Or is it, possibly, 3) just too little too late.
After you reply, I promise to accuse you of being a sell-out or a DFH, as appropriate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
February 19, 2010 5:09 PM in reply to Alex39
"You bastard!"
Thanks for the laughs.
"Fratricide" did not elect Scott Brown. A slacker campaign/candidate who took the voters for granted allowed that to happen. The perils of playing it safe!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 19, 2010 5:09 PM in reply to Alex39
What if I've been saying all along that it's too late because someone in Washington lacks male gonads? Which one does that make me? I've lost track myself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 19, 2010 5:14 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Never mind. I remember now. It makes me a DLC-DFH.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 19, 2010 5:16 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I've been listening to your theory, but the problem with it is that if they were that well coordinated they would have passed the damned bill by now. I'll go with the simpler explanation - totally random acts not heading anywhere. It's not as if totally uncoordinated efforts are unknown with these guys.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 19, 2010 5:43 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
My theory is that leadership and the White House are coordinating a P.R. campaign to turn around public opinion and give cover and/or encouragement to the chickens, the bedwetters and the ones still in the grips of nostalgia for a version of the Senate that's dead and gone. Not that they have the votes to pass it now.
At a bare minimum, they're talking to each other constantly and clearing these messages with the other parties in advance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 19, 2010 5:54 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
So all this looking like a bunch of disorganized doofuses who don't know WTF they are doing is a ploy? When they've spent the last year running around in circles looking like they don't know WTF they're doing? This is the Democratic party we're talking about. Such a well-organized effort is beyond anything they've shown themselves capable of doing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 19, 2010 8:44 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
"The prospect of hanging concentrates the mind wonderfully." Samuel Johnson.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alex39
February 19, 2010 5:56 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Yep. For instance, when I hear this announcement by Reid, I think to myself, "Pelosi has told him that, lacking the Stupak group, and lacking concessions on the excise tax, she's going to need something else to get liberals on board. Aka public option."
I actually am beginning to think the public option might be back on the table.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loudprogressive
February 19, 2010 6:39 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Still pushing that dumb theory huh. A day ago it was predicated on the WH and senate leadership not implicitly endorsing or suggesting support for it, and now that they have you say its just to make 'em feel good? As others have said, the groups that originally started this push are not known to coordinate with the WH, let sign off on allowing their rallying cause to be batted around as a sleazy political stunt and discarded.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 19, 2010 8:46 PM in reply to loudprogressive
Not really pushing it. I don't give rat's ass whether anyone believes me or not, so I'd say "bloviating" would be the more accurate term if one were looking for a perjorative. Which you evidently are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loudprogressive
February 20, 2010 12:31 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
"Not really pushing it"...I'd say after seeing you post that clap-trap in at least 4 other article-threads I'd say you're definitely "pushing it". But who cares about semantics. Just as long as you're admitting what your spouting is in no way connected with reality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
1fingerwillie
February 19, 2010 7:59 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I agree. And I think we owe this to Plouffe. The Republican retreat was beautiful. I am seeing carefully orchestrated politics again. If the Healthcare Summit turns out like I hope it will, I will be convinced that this Obama (via Plouffe) is back:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8FRA7k6RVI
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 19, 2010 5:50 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Yeah, this is mostly about framing. On Monday there will be the health summit. The president will show a proposal a lot like the Senate with a few adjustments to satisfy the House, but no PO.
Then Pelosi and Reid will say, "We want a PO!". The GOP will yell, "PO is evil! HCR is evil!". Then the Blue dogs will say, "We don't want a PO either. How about more Medicaid money for states or something." Obama will agree that's pretty bipartisan. Republicans will scream.
After everybody goes home, the Dems will have to decide whether to pass a bill or not. Assuming the they do, PO will be in it if it has the votes, and won't if it don't.
The idea that the White House hates the PO, or wants to kill it kind of stupid. It's true they didn't fight for the PO (or anything else) back when they were trying to keep 60 Senators on board.
What people forget is that reconciliation was off the table from the very beginning, and that wasn't because of the White House. It was the Senate. It's only been on the table for the last few weeks because the Dems are at the very precipice of political disaster and it makes them more imaginative.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
February 19, 2010 6:31 PM in reply to philogratis
I have to disagree. It is a bit playing around with words to say that the Democrats are on "the very precipice of political disaster."
The "very precipice" upon which they are so precariously perched, to me, is one of political catastrophe, not mere disaster. Next time I urge you to consider your words more carefully ;).
The rest is all very good, and slick observation about becoming more imaginative, yes!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IndyLinda
February 19, 2010 6:35 PM in reply to philogratis
But to my understanding, the whole HCR bill will not be passed by reconciliation--just the fixes to the Senate bill that has already been passed by the Senate and that will be passed by the House. That allows them to get around the relatively strict budget-related reconciliation requirements. So reconciliation might not have been an option for the whole bill, but it would be for the fixes. Or am I just totally off base?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 20, 2010 12:53 AM in reply to IndyLinda
Yeah, that's totally correct. Reconciliation was not an option for insurance reforms, but it would have made a lot more sense to do a reconciliation fix January 1st than March 1st.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 19, 2010 5:50 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Yeah, this is mostly about framing. On Monday there will be the health summit. The president will show a proposal a lot like the Senate with a few adjustments to satisfy the House, but no PO.
Then Pelosi and Reid will say, "We want a PO!". The GOP will yell, "PO is evil! HCR is evil!". Then the Blue dogs will say, "We don't want a PO either. How about more Medicaid money for states or something." Obama will agree that's pretty bipartisan. Republicans will scream.
After everybody goes home, the Dems will have to decide whether to pass a bill or not. Assuming the they do, PO will be in it if it has the votes, and won't if it don't.
The idea that the White House hates the PO, or wants to kill it kind of stupid. It's true they didn't fight for the PO (or anything else) back when they were trying to keep 60 Senators on board.
What people forget is that reconciliation was off the table from the very beginning, and that wasn't because of the White House. It was the Senate. It's only been on the table for the last few weeks because the Dems are at the very precipice of political disaster and it makes them more imaginative.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alex39
February 19, 2010 5:58 PM in reply to philogratis
I strongly agree. In a perverse way, the Brown election has strengthened the hand of the progressives in Congress. Since it now has to go through reconciliation -- and since the GOP still won't strike any deals -- the deals have to be struck with us DFHs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
February 20, 2010 9:00 PM in reply to Alex39
Exactly why I sat on my hands in the Mass Senate race. I don't want another DNC yes-man/woman on board. I want DFHs in the Senate, in the House, in the White House. Purify the ranks. And Brown only has 2 years. Independents are not centrists. They're sick of both parties and want bold policy they can understand. Progressives - if there are any around - have to come on guns blazing to make even incremental progress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
February 19, 2010 4:53 PM
!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
February 19, 2010 4:55 PM
The, Majority Leader, needs to lead the majority, not just wait around & count heads after the number is already known.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
February 19, 2010 5:12 PM in reply to Leftflank
Right. Because that's we we elected him to do in the election for Senate Majority Leader that we all voted in last November.
Sheesh, you'd think he was dependent upon always having to have the support of a majority of the Senate Democratic Caucus at all times in order to keep his position or something.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
February 19, 2010 4:56 PM
Yo, Indie: Where y'at?
Cheers, Brother!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
February 19, 2010 4:58 PM
Reid has literally nothing to lose. He is facing dim reelection prospects. Shaking up the race and firing up grass roots support by actually DELIVERING is really his only hope. And if relection is simply impossible, he will have accomplished soemthing for the history books.
I really don't get people like Bayh. When you are leaving a job, you have don't have to pull punches and worry about polls. Bayh is a true coward for not even fighting when he had nothing to lose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
February 19, 2010 5:00 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Agreed and to all the whiners, please quit whining until we know what's happening. It is really stale and old
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
February 19, 2010 5:11 PM
So we have this announcement and then we have Sebelius saying if the Dem Senate leadership wants to go there, the WH will support it.
I'm sorry, Dem Senate "leadership."
A bunch of people hunkered down in a foshole saying "you first!" Not gonna take the hill that way!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mikael99
February 19, 2010 5:14 PM
I dare say if the public option becomes a part of the final package lets hope that Obama will invite Blache Lincoln and the Lieberdouche to the Oval Office for the signing cermony.
That should be a good omen because they will both hopefully lose their next election campaign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
February 19, 2010 5:27 PM in reply to Mikael99
And then he should give them a hug.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
February 19, 2010 5:19 PM
Interesting use of the passive voice. "If a decision is made". A decision is made? By who? Is Harry Reid not a person who makes decisions?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 19, 2010 5:29 PM in reply to mcc
No, he's not. The caucus makes the decision. The Majority Leader has very little actual power.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
February 19, 2010 6:37 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Unless he has an R next to his name.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
February 19, 2010 9:32 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
This is actually very true, but that's that nature of the parties. Republicans are centralized, Democrats are not. It's always been like that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loudprogressive
February 19, 2010 6:42 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Really? Thats why the public option and later the medicare buy-in was discarded? No. It was because of one senator who Reid immediately caved to. He puts the bill up and schedules the votes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 19, 2010 5:32 PM
50 Senators have to collectively make the decision. If there aren't 50, Reid could theoretically separate PO from the rest of the package and schedule it for a symbolic vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
February 19, 2010 6:10 PM
This is just another opportunity for the faux progressive caucus to exhibit faux progressivism which alas, big sigh, faux sigh, will tragicly fail due to forces beyond their control after which they will expect you all to send money, GOTV, for them based upon their faux acts of courage. If only, if only it were not for the (multiple choice: Blue Dogs, Republicans, tea baggers, El Nino, global warming, Dick Cheney, snow, terrorists, Joe Lieberman....) they would have delivered for you, but alas, it was not to be. REPEAT indefinitely: Send Money.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loudprogressive
February 19, 2010 7:43 PM in reply to bluebell
Funny, most of the groups pushing this are asking for phone calls and letters to politicians, not checks. You must be talking about the tea baggers and their faux grassroots campaigns.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
February 19, 2010 7:21 PM
Mexican Chicken Soup
4 split (2 whole) chicken breasts, bone in, skin on
Good olive oil
Kosher salt and freshly ground black pepper
2 cups chopped onions (2 onions)
1 cup chopped celery (2 stalks)
2 cups chopped carrots (4 carrots)
4 large cloves garlic, chopped
2 1/2 quarts chicken stock, preferably homemade
1 (28-ounce) can whole tomatoes in puree, crushed
2 to 4 jalapeno peppers, seeded and minced
1 teaspoon ground cumin
1 teaspoon ground coriander seed
1/4 to 1/2 cup chopped fresh cilantro leaves, optional
6 (6-inch) fresh white corn tortillas
For serving: sliced avocado, sour cream, grated Cheddar cheese, and tortilla chips
Preheat the oven to 350 degrees F.
Place the chicken breasts skin side up on a sheet pan. Rub with olive oil, sprinkle with salt and pepper, and roast for 35 to 40 minutes, until done. When the chicken is cool enough to handle, discard the skin and bones, and shred the meat. Cover and set aside.
Meanwhile, heat 3 tablespoons of olive oil in a large pot or Dutch oven. Add the onions, celery, and carrots and cook over medium-low heat for 10 minutes, or until the onions start to brown. Add the garlic and cook for 30 seconds. Add the chicken stock, tomatoes with their puree, jalapenos, cumin, coriander, 1 tablespoon salt (depending on the saltiness of the chicken stock), 1 teaspoon pepper, and the cilantro, if using. Cut the tortillas in 1/2, then cut them crosswise into 1/2-inch strips and add to the soup. Bring the soup to a boil, then lower the heat and simmer for 25 minutes. Add the shredded chicken and season to taste. Serve the soup hot topped with sliced avocado, a dollop of sour cream, grated Cheddar cheese, and broken tortilla chips.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eztempo
February 19, 2010 7:33 PM
Ain't it a shame that Mr Obama has decided to be "circumspect" instead of leading the change he asked me to believe in?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
February 19, 2010 7:56 PM
Color me shocked, shocked at this news.
Yeah, that's never been done before *cough* SCHIP *cough* Medicare Advantage *cough* COBRA.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
February 19, 2010 8:07 PM in reply to gharlane
I think it's gonna happen. Of course we know too well the Dems propensity for snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. Keep your fingers crossed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
des
February 19, 2010 8:20 PM
There is no problem with using reconciliation for any HC reform that would also include a public option. Since one of the major reason to include a PO is to help control costs (deficits) there is no reason the parliamentarian shouldn't rule in its favor.
As for the tactics of the last year; we should always remember that President Obama ran a campaign with a major point being his promise to be "bi-partisan". I personally have little doubt that that promise helped immensely in achieving the Democratic victory in November, 2008.
For the past twelve months he and the Democratic leadership in Congress have done their best to work in just such a manner. During those same twelve months, however, the Republicans have done everything possible to not only block the Democratic agenda; an agenda which helped elect Mr. Obama and enjoyed a support of the majority of the voters, but to make the operation of the Federal government itself nearly impossible.
Bipartisan-ship has been given its chance and failed. Now we are on Plan B. Finally.
Here's hoping it isn't too late...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
February 19, 2010 8:25 PM in reply to des
Absolutely. We already have the CBO score showing that the PO will lower the budget cost. It's a slam dunk (G. Tenet).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cassady
February 19, 2010 9:06 PM
Sorry, but I just refuse to get excited about this. It'll all come to nothingm like every other progressive drive. The Republicans are too good at manipulation and the Democrats too weak and spineless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 20, 2010 1:27 AM
... and need to grow a pair. Hillary Clinton would have grown a pair.
Oh, and we need to cut Rahm's off.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
debbiedoesnothing
February 20, 2010 3:50 PM
In the eyes of most voters, the failure of the public option means the failure of health care reform, whether or not a health care bill passes. The failure of health care reform means the failure of Obama. He has no one but himself to blame. Resurrecting the public option - and Obama coming out strongly to fight for it - even if it ultimately fails - is the best chance we have of holding onto seats in Congress. Voters want the public option and they will vote for the people who fight for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nutter
February 20, 2010 6:31 PM in reply to debbiedoesnothing
And all the hate I saw even when there WAS a Public Option in the bill? Something about it, you know, taking a long time to set up? DUH!
Hypocrite.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
huangzhixian
February 20, 2010 8:36 PM
http://www.Allbyer.com
Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, Here are the most popular, most stylish and avantgarde shoes,handbags,Tshirts,jacket,Tracksuitw ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA ,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3)$35HANDBGAS(COACH,L V, DG, ED HARDY)$35TSHIRTS (POLO ,ED HARDY, LACOSTE) $16 New to Hong Kong : Winter Dress--- NHL Jersey Woman $ 40 --- NFL Jersey $35--- NBA Jersey $ 34 --- MLB Jersey $ 35--- Jordan Six Ring_m $36 --- Air Yeezy_m $ 45--- T-Shirt_m $ 25 --- Jacket_m $ 36--- Hoody_m $ 50 --- Manicure Set $20 ... Company launched New Year carnival as long as the purchase of up to 200, both exquisite gift, surprise here, do not miss, welcome friends from all circles to come to order..,For details, please consult http://www.Allbyer.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?