 |
 |
   Memo: The way forward on health care reform in 2010.
 A dark legacy of the Vietnam War is creating a whole new set of problems.
|
   |
|
|
January 14, 2009
REID SCORES COMMITTEE WIN.... The start of the 111th Congress has been a little rough on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, but he scored a very nice win this morning.
One of the lingering angles was over whether to consider Al Franken's victory in Minnesota as part of the ratio negotiations. This morning, leaders reached an agreement that the Democratic caucus would have, in fact, 59 members, which would obviously include Franken being seated. Congress Matters has a good piece on this, noting that Republicans had threatened to filibuster the organizing resolution unless Democrats agreed to cap their committee advantage at +2. That obviously didn't happen. I realize all of this sounds like procedural, inside-pool, but this kind of advantage may prove important over the next couple of years. As Elana Schor explained, "This means that every time an even mildly contentious bill comes up to a vote -- or a mildly contentious nominee, for that matter -- Democrats can afford to lose one centrist member to the Republicans and still get a win." —Steve Benen 4:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)Comments
Uh, "radio negotiations"? Perhaps "ratio"? Posted by: Michael Carpet on January 14, 2009 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINKOn all other committees -- except the Ethics panel, which always includes three members of each party -- there will be three more Democrats than Republicans,[...] -- cq politics But, but, but... What reasons will Reid now have for caving in? Posted by: exlibra on January 14, 2009 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINKMichael Carpet, @16:13, Since that came in around the part where Franken's seating was concerned, I thought "radio" was nice. "TV", though, should have been included also. Posted by: exlibra on January 14, 2009 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINKI don't believe it. Mitch had to have gotten something much better from Harry the Caver than the seats he gave up. Probably an agreement that the minimum number of votes to win a motion in the Senate has gone up from 60 to 80. Posted by: Yellow Dog on January 14, 2009 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK"This means that every time an even mildly contentious bill comes up to a vote -- or a mildly contentious nominee, for that matter -- Democrats can afford to lose one centrist member to the Republicans and still get a win." The possibility of the Republicans' loosing any centrist members to the Democrats being remote. Posted by: Duncan Kinder on January 14, 2009 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINKThe possibility of the Republicans' loosing any centrist members to the Democrats being remote. -- Duncan Kinder, @16:43 *What* "centrist Republicans"? Have they cloned Olympia Snowe while I wasn't looking, or has Lieberman finally and openly declared his membership in the other camp? Posted by: exlibra on January 14, 2009 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINKWe should have begged them to filibuster this. With the old committee set up, with all the members they lost, we would have been +4 on a lot of committees. Would have been hilarious for them to try whining about that set up while they were filibustering the new one. Posted by: flounder on January 14, 2009 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINKExtry extry read all about it: Harry Reid Exhibits Leadership, Does Something Right For A Change! Posted by: Tree on January 14, 2009 at 10:52 PM | PERMALINKWe should have begged them to filibuster this. With the old committee set up, with all the members they lost, we would have been +4 on a lot of committees. Would have been hilarious for them to try whining about that set up while they were filibustering the new one. And I think that answer's Yellow Dog's question about what McConnell got out of the deal. The losses of Republican representation from a number of committees would have severely hampered the Republican caucus in a lot of ways if they had chosen to stonewall on this. Posted by: NonyNony on January 15, 2009 at 9:54 AM | PERMALINK
February 2010
January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
