I have a question - if Snowe votes to end discussion (i.e. stop the filibuster) and the Dems then pass an amendment she doesn't like, can the bill be filibustered again?

Dennis, the answer is no. Once cloture is voted on a bill or a unanimous consent agreement is reached on how the bill will be debated and amended (the more usual way of handling things) that sets the terms of debate and amendment in concrete. The difficulty is, of course, getting to that point.

If Obama (and I consider him the pivot at this stage) accepts a bill with a mandate but without a real public option, it will be a betrayal of everything he campaigned for. And I was one of his early, most fervent supporters. But he can't sugarcoat this turkey. It is unacceptable for the government to force us simply to buy private insurance; we need to have a viable, not-for-profit choice in the mix as well. If I feel this strongly about it, I can only imagine what Republican attacks might look like in the next few elections. Doesn't anyone in the Democratic leadership understand the concept of unintended consequences?

And the loathsome health insurance industry revealed its true reptilian self the other day by predicting 110% increases in premiums if anything were to pass.

As KO pointedly pointed out last night, NO health reform progressives are at the table.

I got my annual Geezer Checkup from my doc the other day. As I was putting my clothes back on a rep from Godfather Health Group stuck his head in the dressing room door.

"Take the pants," he said, "Leave the wallet. . ."

But I wonder what the reaction might be if the Democratic National Committee casually referred to President Obama as Barackus Magnus. I have a hunch we'd never hear the end of it.

Their heads would explode. I think it might be worth trying!

Sorry, everyone. Wrong article. Should be with the Hero Worship piece.

I knew I hadn't gotten enough sleep last night....

The Great White House Snow Storm of 2009

Front page NYT: All eyes were on Senator Olympia J. Snowe, the Maine Republican whose call for a “trigger” that would establish a government plan as a fallback is one of the leading compromise ideas.

Two senior administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the White House looked favorably on the Snowe plan. But liberal Democrats were maneuvering against it Wednesday, arguing that Ms. Snowe, the lone Republican to vote in favor of the Finance Committee’s bill, was gaining undue influence over the talks.

“It’s one vote, she won’t make the commitment on the final product, and she says she’s got to have the trigger,” said Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, Democrat of Arizona, who is leading an effort in the House to round up votes for a government plan akin to Medicare. “I think the administration has put her in the driver’s seat; it’s very disconcerting.”

There was strong consensus that crafting a bill that can garner 60 votes is an attainable goal.

In other words, the Dems need to bargain like crazy just to keep their own troops from joining the GOP in filibustering the bill.

Because the bill only needs 50 votes. The 'only' thing 60 votes are needed for is cloture. In a better world, those quotes around 'only' wouldn't be needed, given that there are 60 Dems in the Senate, but there you go.

What a farce.

Well now is the time for all politicians to really skewer the American people by providing everything the insurance companies want and nothing for Americans but payment out of the tax payers pocket. I have little faith in the politicians stepping up to the plate for American Taxpayers. The Results will undoubtedly be very amoral.

"There was strong consensus that crafting a bill that can garner 60 votes is an attainable goal."

We only need 50. Screw Lieberman, Snowe, and the conserva-Dems, and give us a strong national public option.

One has to wonder how much of the time being spent NOW is to form the dialogue that will convince the sheeple that WHATEVER bill is passed (because that appears to be the BIGGEST goal)is NOT THAT BAD and we should be happy and grateful that ANYTHING got passed!!! It's the BUSH...pass it, declare VICTORY and move on theory...worked for him because we then had a totally inept and complicit media...they are still BEYOND inept but not so inclined to drink the kool-aid!

"Howay eformray eformray"?--Lucius Annaeus Seneca.

Who will reform the reform?

Harry Reid promised "sufficient time" to debate the bill, but seemed well aware of the fact that the GOP is not interested in constructive lawmaking. "We understand they would rather never have a vote on this," Reid said.

Gosh, Harry, you all passed the Patriot Act without so much as a glance, and it was pretty constructive lawmaking. But the important thing is, it's what the Republicans want.

I find it totally insane that "Leader" Reid continues to "SELL" the notion that 60 votes in the Senate including Senator Snowe is his PRIME objective.
His objective should be to compel 60 Democrats to vote for Cloture when the Final Senate Bill reaches that stage. The threat of Party penalties such as loss of committee chairmanships for failure to vote for Cloture SHOULD be more important than selling the Democratic platform down the river to appease Republican Senator Snowe.
If Reid fails to deliver a REAL public option in the Senate version of Health Care Reform, he definitely deserves to lose his leadership position.
I am sick and tired of hearing the "SNOW JOB" that Leader Reid and the Obama administration are selling.
Its time to protect the people on Main Street rather than the dividend checks generated by over compensated Health Insurance Carriers on Wall Street.

I'm all for having a strong public option, but there seems to be a real question as to whether they can get such a bill through the Senate.

If the final bill doesn't have a public option, that would be unfortunate, but I wouldn't consider it a betrayal by the Administration. If the votes aren't there for it, then it won't happen.

"I'm all for having a strong public option, but there seems to be a real question as to whether they can get such a bill through the Senate."

That depends on your definition of getting a bill through the Senate.

If you incorrectly define 60 votes as necessary to get a bill through the Senate, then the votes aren't there to pass a robust public option. On the other hand, if you correctly define 50 votes (plus Biden) as necessary to get a bill through the Senate, then the votes are there to pass a robust public option.

Bottom line: We have the Senate votes needed for a robust public option through reconciliation--a tactic that Republicans used repeatedly to overcome a filibuster. A tactic consistent with the constitutional principal of majority rule.

If we get weaker health reform because the administration and/or the Senate leadership (i.e., Harry Reid) is too afraid to stand up to Republicans complaining about reconciliation and screeching talking heads who parrot their complaints, then it would be a betrayal.

I think some of us are confused.
If the Dems get the 60 votes for cloture, it will be acceptable for the Conservadems to vote NO at the actual vote on the bill. It appears 52 DEMS are on board for the Public option. (This would not be reconciliation)
The problem is SOME Dems could vote with the Republicans and STOP cloture.
It would be a SAD, SICK day to believe that some elected DEMS would support the Republican filibuster by NOT voting for cloture.
Any Dems who would support a Republican filibuster
should lose their chairmanships on committees.
Dems should support Dems on the cloture vote which permits voting on the Bill, which SHOULD include a robust public option.

I think we all know what the weasel words "meaningful reform" probably mean, don't we?

parityfanatic,

Cloture would be nice, but it's not necessary. Reconciliation is a viable option that Reid and associates are trying to avoid because they don't have the courage to face down the talking heads who were silent when the Republicans used the same approach to get around filibusters.

That said, the same gutless leadership could easily overcome the filibuster by threatening Dems who vote against cloture (they won't).

In the end, the gutlessness of Reid is likely to mean no threats for voting against cloture, no reconciliation, and at the end of the day, a weak bill coming out of the Senate. No wonder his approval rating is low in his home state.

If "LEADER?" Reid and the Obama Administration produce a WEAK Senate Bill without a Robust Public Option, I and many other Democrats won't bother to vote in 2010 & 2012.
I expect to get shafted during Republican Administrations.
Why produce Democratic majorities?
If the Baucus Bill with no public option and no direct additional taxation on millionaires is the best our Senate leadership can produce, Main Street gets SHAFTED no matter who wins elections !