Yes yes yes! I've been saying this myself: there's a bunch of Dem senators who might not favor the public option, but are they really going to have the spine to join a Republican filibuster to prevent an up-and-down vote on a popular policy supported by a president of their own party, their own leadership, and their own base ?

Bear in mind that these are mostly the same people who would never lift a finger to stop any of Bush's terrible legislation. They never had a spine then, who thinks they've grown one ?

Put them on the spot. Tell them that if they join a Republican filibuster, they'll have a well-funded primary challenger in the next cycle with Obama's support. Ask if they really want to face ads saying that they personally stopped healthcare reform.

Play a little hardball, and they'll fold quickly.

What bothers me about this formulation is that it presumes that under ordinary circumstances (Harry Ried, cough cough) there is no liklihood that democratic senators will defer even that much to party loyalty. Its absurd that this even has to be stated. Has there ever been a situation in which the republican senators ever sided with their democratic associates on a filibuster? No, of course not. Party identity and party loyalty mean something to those mother **ckers. What is wrong with Obama, Reid, and the DSCC that they can't and won't enforce party line loyalty at the filibuster level? We've had thi sproblem, obviously, since the senators and the leadership failed to stick the shiv into Lieberman's political corpse and supported him over Lamont after he lost the primary.

aimai

I attended an event last weekend at which Senator Lincoln spoke. While she would not commit to pushing for a public option, her commitment to reform was clear. I think she will support a bill with a public option or with co-ops, whichever gets to the Senate floor. I definitely do not see her supporting a filibuster, whichever type of bill gets to the floor.

Any one of "our" Senators who votes against cloture on any major issue, especially health care, should be punished with loss of any committee and subcommittee chairmanships and relegation to the least desirable committee assignments. It's time for the majority of actual Democrats in the caucus to stop coddling these fuckers.

Democrats better bind together and unify. the republicans are using chaos to discredit America. Democrats use your back bone. demand leadershuip from OBAMA with this issue!

democratic members of the senate clown car having spines equals joining with republicans?

i dont think so.

the united states senate clown car is capable of almost any horrendous crime against nature and the gods. these big shoed, bad-haired, sexually-deviant, pompous asses are notoriously evil, incompetent and arrogantly stoopid.

they reflect nearly everything that is wrong with our society today.

just thinking about the us senate makes me throw up a little in my mouth.

I get so infuriated by the way some Senators speak of vote counts as if they were some fixed feature of the natural world, like the temperature outside. That votes are not fixed, and can be changed through debate and deal-making, is the whole point of a deliberative body like the Senate. When people like Conrad speak of the "votes" not being there in that way, it's a weaseling way of saying he doesn't want it to happen, but doesn't have the guts to take responsibility for that position. (Plus, if he can convince those around him that there's no hope of it passing, he may manage to avoid ever having to actually cast a vote for it.)

Well, if I were the majority leader, I'd let it be known that any member caucus voting against cloture ever would be stripped of everything, but I'm an inflexible progressive without foreknowledge of the impending jujitsu that Obama is gonna checkmate the GOP with. Look out!

I think Ambinder said yesterday there is about 43 in the Senate for Pub Opt, not 50 yet.

"When people like Conrad speak of the "votes" not being there in that way, it's a weaseling way of saying he doesn't want it to happen, but doesn't have the guts to take responsibility for that position."

Absolutely! He doesn't want to take responsibility
for *anything*. If someone isn't even prepared to come out and say publically what they personally think on the issue, then it seems to me a pretty safe bet that they aren't going to take the extreme step of supporting a Republican filibuster. They want to sit on the fence. And getting them to vote for cloture, but then vote against the bill, should suit their purposes just fine: if the reform turns out to be a success, they'll claim credit for the cloture vote; if it turns out to be unpopular, they'll say "don't blame me, I voted against it".

The mantra "Give the President an up-or-down vote" worked pretty well for the Republicans, didn't it, and they didn't have a 60-vote majority. Now if only we knew what plan the President was supporting.

It is about power, not fairness. Without a meaningful penalty for obstructing your party's goals, waffling on cloture may enhance your power position within the group. This allows you to extract further concessions on this or other future bills.

It doesn't make much sense to count votes now--before Obama and the congressional leadership begin to apply the buttons and levers of their power. I seem to remember doom and gloom predictions for each of Obama's signature legislative measures. This disposes me to have faith, help where I can, and shut up and be patient.

Every time Conrad or one of the Dem senators comes out against a public option, I shout at the teevee, "Fine, let's take away YOUR public option!"

Hypocrites.

Look, these guys like Konrad are bought and paid for subsidiaries of the insurance corporations. Their bosses know that if it comes to a vote, the insurance companies lose, so they aren't going to allow their puppy dogs to support cloture. So, yes, we do need 60 votes because to these slimy creatures, their pay masters are more important than their constituents.

So did Kent Conrad actually thank the Democrats around the country who gave Senate Democrats a majority and made Sen Conrad a Committee Chair and all the more powerful?

It's stunning that he would benefit from all of our efforts and then a) cater to Republicans and b) undercut Democrats from whose many efforts he benefits.

That's some kind of gratitude for ya!

After many years, I am soooo done being a member of the Democratic Party. Screw them before they screw you.

The 60 vote fetish, as though Ben Nelson and the other Blue Dogs can be relied on.

Let's say the bill has a simple public option: if you are denied coverage by three insurance companies, you can apply for a Medicare card at a set price.

Would and Dem Senator vote to leave debate open on that?

I think the main concern about 60 votes is that Sen. Kennedy may not be able to vote and then there are only 59 votes even if all other Dems go along. Of course, he might be able to make one final dramatic appearance for this purpose, in which event I find it hard to believe any other Dem would vote against cloture.