If he sides with the GOP on a filibuster, he should know that he'll be doing so without further support from the Democratic party, and he can run in Iowa as an independent or Republican from now on.

Senator Bill Nelson worked very hard for the Obama-Biden ticket in Florida. Taking a very visible role, he campaigned with both Michelle Obama and with Joe Biden. I know this because I was at their rallies.

Don't forget: Obama carried Florida, and the public support of Bill Nelson was certainly helpful.

So I'm hopeful.

CMcC, this is Ben Nelson from Nebraska, not Bill Nelson.

So I'm hopeful.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but we're talking about BEN Nelson from Nebraska.

Bill Nelson is my Senator, too, and I have spoken with his office a few times. I am also hopeful about his position, but the other Nelson, not so much.

We need Ben Nelson reform.

and he can run in Iowa as an independent or Republican from now on.

Why would he run in Iowa?

The ultimate punishment for Sen. Nelson's treachery would be to make him run in Iowa and to call him "Bill".

Seriously though, the leadership has to start imposing discipline on cloture votes. If Nelson votes to filibuster, he needs to be cut loose from party backing.

The most amazing quote was this one:

"Change, not health care reform, was the issue" in the 2008 presidential election, Nelson said.

Um... what?

Really, how incoherent can you be?

Status quo defenders like Ben Nelson are so desperate to protect their health industry patrons that they aren't even trying to make sense anymore.

The entire goal is to kill reform and keep those campaign contributions flowing.

It would actually be refreshing for a corporate lackey like Ben Nelson to just admit that and stop pretending that he cares even one whit about the well-being of the American people.

Ah, Blue Dogs. They seem to forget that we just had two consecutive elections where moderate-to-liberal Dems won in routs. If one election has consequences, then surely two do.

-Z

i realize Nebraska is more conservative than PA, but what Nelson needs is a credible primary threat to focus his mind.

Senators representing 31% of the country should determine what passes! That's DEMOCRACY!!

These are the comments of a complete asshat.

Nelson needs to sit down and shut up. I'm tired of his nonsense. He gets to represent his state. And that's it.

I really don't give a crap about what he has to say about anything.

It would surprise me if (Ben) Nelson _didn't_ support a Republican filibuster.

I'm sure he will run as a Democrat again, and will have the support of the national party. Because if we don't tolerate the presence of a collaborator in the party, then OMG NO LIBERAL CAN WIN IN NEBRASKA DO YOU WANT THE REPUBLICANS IN CONTROL AGAIN HONESTLY YOU RADICALS JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT IDEOLOGICAL INCOHERENCY!!!!!!!!!ELEVEN!

"Change, not health care reform, was the issue" in the 2008 presidential election, Nelson said.

seriously? for fuck's sake.

One of the "changes" we worked and voted for was a "change" in the health care system.

Not too hard to understand.

Hopefully, Ben Nelson's actions will have consequences in his next election.

Here's a good time for the Dems to follow the GOP's example re: party discipline. In the past, when the GOP has found a Senator or Rep which it found to be insufficiently conservative, they responded by convincing a member of the Club for Growth, or something similar (Pat Toomey, for instance) to run against him/her. The typical result was that the incumbent began to run to the right of his challenger.

The DSCC should heavily recruit a Nebraska liberal to run against Nelson.

-Z

Oops. Sorry for commenting on the wrong Nelson, though I'm glad to see the remarks of John S. Hope we are right on Senator Bill, who will soon be voting on the Finance Committee.

As for Senator Ben, I have a hard time understanding how anyone who calls himself a Democrat would support a Republican filibuster. And this will actually the key vote, right?

Nelson is certainly annoying, but what do we expect from a Dem. representing a very conservative state? This is the price of a big tent, ruling majority. As long as he lets it rule, he gets some leeway.

That said, it is entirely frustrating that states representing a tiny minority of our population can block or so heavily influence legislation. I have over time moved to the strong opinion that the rules of the Senate filibuster as it currently exists should change. The majority should be allowed to be the majority, or responsibility is muddied.

In the meantime, there should be penalties for blocking a vote on your party's number one legislative initiative. Vote whatever you want on the bill, but let it get to the floor or your seat might as well belong to the other party. Let's hope he's just performing for the home crowd.

HOW MANY ELECTIONS UNTIL THEY HAVE CONSEQUENCES?

Forty-two. :)

Likewise, Democrats ran on a party platform that called for "affordable, quality health care coverage for all Americans."

Well yeah, but good old Ben Nelson didn't, did he.

Ben has a solid point here. We should wait until 2011 before we come up with a plan to cover the uninsured. And the uninsured in the meantime can wait until 2011 before getting sick.

HOW MANY ELECTIONS UNTIL THEY HAVE CONSEQUENCES?

Forty-two. :) - low-tech cyclist

Now, don't be so damn rash. Let's discuss this on a chat show, OK?

Benny Boy, pony up: you and your family can go without health care until 2011. See how that works for you, your wife, your four kids, and your grandkids. C'mon, Mr. Ethanol, just do it.

Since Nelson is so worried about wasting taxpayers' money, maybe the Senate Democratic leadership should propose slashing ag subsidies, the biggest pork barrel boondoggle in the federal budget next to defense spending.

Steve has repeated in several posts that health care reform was Obama's "signature issue" during the presidential campaign and that therefore this is more evidence of a public mandate to reform health care.

I support health care reform (and agree is has broad public support) but I think it may overstate things to call this Obama's signature campaign issue.

First, in the Democratic primary where health care policy was more heavily debated than in the general (which McCain-Palin devoted to such critical issues as whether Obama was an American citizen), Obama was seen as the "moderate" alternative to Hillary and Edwards. For many voters, he was seen as the "go slow" guy on health care reform, not the standard bearer for overarching change.

Second, once the economy tanked, that became by far the overriding issue for the past two months of the campaign. After that, health care was hardly on the front burner.

Third, the real mandate for Obama was that he wasn't Bush and wasn't a Republican.

None of this means we shouldn't aggressively pursue health care reform; as a single payer advocate, I would like it to be more aggressive than Obama seems to support.

But politicians are attuned to where public opinion is. Both Nelsons, Baucus, Lincoln, et al, do not sense that there is a voter mandate to take bold action, or they would do it out of self preservation. We shouldn't be mystified at why they won't support more aggressive health care reform, we ought to be trying to understand what those of us who advocate reform are doing wrong in failing to create the level of public opinion that would move this forward.

Ben, what's the going price for a Senator?

Just a couple mill?

Talk about selling your country down a river for chump change...

NOV,2008 Will be my last time voting. Because your vote don't count.It not about the people, It about their pockets.