 |
 |
   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.
|
   |
|
|
October 23, 2009
ONE EYE ON POLICY, ONE EYE ON CLOTURE.... Every time a center-right member of the Senate Democratic caucus says something discouraging about health care reform, there's always a key caveat: their votes on cloture matter more than their votes on the bill. Just so long as these "Conservadems" oppose a Republican filibuster that would block consideration of the bill, they can vote however they please on the legislation itself. With that in mind, there's pretty intense interest in how these members plan to proceed on cloture. For example, it flew under the radar this week, but Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.) told Ryan Grim the other day, "I'm not right now inclined to support any filibuster." Noting the GOP's obstructionists tactics, Landrieu added, "For the Republican Party to kind of step out of the game is very unfortunate. I'm not going to be joining people that don't want progress." What's more, last week, Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) said, "I don't think you'll see me or any other Democrats" support a filibuster. (via Aaron Wiener) Yesterday, Arlen Specter offered a surprisingly encouraging assessment.
If that's true, it's obviously a major breakthrough. If there are already 60 votes for cloture, the likelihood of a strong bill becoming law is very strong. The problem, though, is that Specter seems to be the only person who's convinced that those votes are definitely there. I hope he's right, but I'll temper my enthusiasm until I hear others -- say, someone in the leadership, for example -- make the same assessment. All things being equal, though, this is the right push -- just get the center-right Dems to commit to an up-or-down vote. That's all. They don't have to like the bill; they don't even have to vote for the bill; they can even vote for an amendment to remove the public option from the bill; they just have to let the bill come to the floor for a vote. Get 60 senators to agree, and everything will work out fine. —Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)Comments
What's more, last week, Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) said, "I don't think you'll see me or any other Democrats" support a filibuster. And that, my friend, is cloture. Posted by: de stijl on October 23, 2009 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK"We have 60 votes without Sen. [Olympia] Snowe [R-Maine] to invoke cloture," -- Arlen Specter It looks to me like Specter was just trying to give a heads up to his Republican buddies so they'd have time to do something about it.
Waterboard them if they vote against the party. Posted by: par4 on October 23, 2009 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINKNelson, Lieberman, etc. will have no problems voting against cloture (for filibuster) on ammendments or even the Senate version of the healthcare bill. However, they will have a problem voting against cloture on the final version after it comes back from conference. That's why I say it doesn't matter what passes in the Senate bill as long as it gets added on in conference. Posted by: Danp on October 23, 2009 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINKWonder if that 60 includes that steaming pile of pig shit called Liberman ? Did you see his spluttering speech the other day in the Senate where his sniveling was defined his open asshole filled with the Health Insurance Industries dicks ? what a fucking spectacle this pile of pig shit is Posted by: stormskies on October 23, 2009 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINKWell, as a student of politics, if I know anything it's that we can count on senator Lieberman. He's never let us down in the past. Posted by: doubtful on October 23, 2009 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINKI have feeling that the word has gone out that if any Democrats (or Independents caucusing with Democrats) oppose cloture and allow the GOP to filibuster health care reform, there will be consequences. There is enough public support for this so that it is a political minefield for those Senators representing purple states on the reddish side of the spectrum. Best they can hope for at this point is "yes" on cloture and "no" on the bill. That way, no matter how the bill turns out, they have a defensible position. A no vote on cloture and they suffer large scale defections from the left side of the independents and a yes vote on the bill itself and they will suffer massive defections from the right side of the independents. The Dems may actually play this lie like a bunch of non-country club Republicans and just ram it through with raw power. Posted by: majun on October 23, 2009 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINKmajun said: No, the Dems will play this the way they always do -- trying to push a rope up a hill. They will pass something, and it even might have a public option. But the something will end up being just another transfer of taxpayer money to corporations and once we read the fine print it will turn out that only 14 people in the country will be eligible to sign up for the "public option".
I say that if any Democrats (or independents in the Democratic caucus) votes against cloture on this one, then they get thrown out of the caucus. There is no point in having a 60 vote caucus if the members can't be counted on to block filibusters. Posted by: Daryl McCullough on October 23, 2009 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINKNeeded: a national grassroots level threat of a campaign to shame/slime any Democratic Senator who would support a filibuster. The implication must be that it will be a PR disaster not only for the filibustering official, but for the HC industry. "This is who killed healthcare." Would affect their fundraising, and further demonize the HC insurance industry. The next step in that battle could be to begin a national grassroots effort to regulate prices. Posted by: Frank C. on October 23, 2009 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINKWhy is it that house leaders want to count commitments before a vote? Is there some rule that states a bill that fails can't be resubmitted? Because the wingnuts and their right-to-life crusade sure never heard of it. Take the damn vote already. No more intrigue. Get every congress-critter on record. Then let a few weeks of public explanations and protest commence before minor tweaks and another vote. And another. And another. Oh, and progressives.... perhaps you can get your collective talking points together and attack in sync. And make it personal. Posted by: Chopin on October 23, 2009 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINKI mean seriously, what Democrat want to be known as THE reason HCR failed? Even if they are in a reddish state, there will be a shitstorm of support for their primary opponent (and there will be an opponent running against HCR obstruction, trust me). Posted by: bdop4 on October 23, 2009 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINKThis is how it used to be. There was no routine filibuster, so almost all legislation moved to the floor if there was a good chance that it could pass. The minority party did not state flatly that they were filibustering everything that the majority leader was moving to the floor. 51 votes meant that something passed. If after all this, a Democrat has the audacity to stand in the way of a proper vote, they should be made to wear that shame for the rest of their lives.
Post a comment
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 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
