WTF is Harry Reid doing (or not doing in this case)!?

Bayh should have been told on several occasion that siding with the GOP on cloture is an automatic death card regarding future standing in the party.

I'de rather kick these mofos out of the party and do it through reconciliation than dealing with this effing bullshit.

Oh fer Keerist's sake... everybody knows Bayh is a puppet for the medical insurance companies.

He's not following McConnell... he and McConnell are puppets for their corporate masters... they are traitors to the American people.

I'm not much on framing, but sweet jeebus, this is just bright shiny distraction when you don't put it out there who the real enemy is, and who is paid off buy them in the clown car senate.

the cries of up or down were reverberating in the halls of the senate, just 2-3 years ago. Where are they now? Hypocrisy is on the march. Weren't Joe and Evan Bayh in the gang of 14 that got BUSH's radical judicial agenda through the senate by encouraging votes on those candidates? Well the chickens have come home to roost. There will be blood (figuratively) if democrats vote against their leadership on PROCEDURAL issues. No ideological purity in the democratic party. Bayh and holy joe can vote against the best chance for HCR in this 20 years, but if they obstruct the senate against the wishes of the leadership then they must pay a steep price.

You know, this argument is a little disingenuous: proponents of reform (myself included) know full well that voting for cloture is, more or less, a vote for the bill's passage since the reform is that popular amongst the Senators. More than fifty-one are guaranteed to vote for it. So if your aim is to block reform, you filibuster.

In general, yes, voting for cloture is different than voting for the actual bill. In this case, voting for cloture will all but guarantee the bill's passage.

Bayh isn't helping Republicans. He's either helping himself, since he's representing a fairly conservative state or, most likely, he's delivering on an implicit promise to his corporate sponsors. Same for Lincoln. Same for Landrieu. Same for Nelson.

So all this talk of "just vote for cloture" is a little misleading. In this particular case, a vote for cloture equals a vote for reform. Pure and simple.

One word: reconciliation.

such a stolid argument, freeproton, except that it is almost always the case that most votes are already tallied by the leadership before the cloture vote. so there is nothing dif here at all...

and disingenuous flows both ways...

Public option is dead. I have no faith in the Dem caucus uniting as one on the cloture vote. I have no faith in Harry Reid. I have no faith in the democratic process at all. These guys, down to their very core, are corporate dupes.
Let the insurance companies start celebrating - they've won....

I'm wondering if Reid knew this would happen all along?

This post suggests what might be a useful improvement to lots of blog posts: routinely adding an embedded link to a legislator's email address. Senator Bayh would do well to be reminded that voting against the majority is different from obstructing the will of the majority.

This should not come as any surprise........Bayh's wife gets considerable sums of money from the health insurance industry.

Maybe there is a difference between voting to end the filibuster and voting for the bill, but is there a principled reason for voting to end filibuster in some cases, but not others? Is there ANY situation in which it is acceptable for a Democrat to join in a filibuster against a Democratic bill?

Maybe it should just be a caucus thing. Being in the caucus means that you don't filibuster bills that are favored by a majority of that caucus. You can vote against them, but you can't filibuster. If Reid wants that to be the norm, then he should try to enforce it by throwing those who violate it out of the caucus.

Interestingly, the "moderate Democrats" are the same ones who break filibusters by the Democrats and support filibusters by the Republicans.

Evan Bayh is my Senator and he sucks.

It's time to start pounding him on his obvious conflict of interest.

His wife, Susan, sits on the board of directors at Wellpoint and is paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. I believe 2 million over the past several years.

From the desk of Evan Bayh:

Again, this web site mischaracterizes my positions.

1) I am not opposed to a public option. I am vigorously and completely opposed to a public option.

2) The sure way to kill health care reform is to not allow the senate to vote on it in any form. I have pledged to my constituency to do just that.

3) Much of my family's wealth is in Wellpoint stock and stock options. By number of enrollees, Wellpoint (Anthem/Blue Cross/Blue Shield) is the largest health care insurance provider in my country. My wife, Susan, is on the board of directors of Wellpoint. For these she receives only 1/3 million $$$ a year in direct compensation. Her stock and stock options are worth millions and form the largest part of our family wealth.

4) If you think I am going to put my family's wealth in potential harm to save a bunch of whining working class people, think again.

5) I am a senator and I have more than $13 million in campaign funds for next year's reelection effort. Nobody is going to fuck with me!

6) I am a senator and thus am due whatever I can get in financial return.

7) I am a senator and I represent my constituency extremely well. My family is my constituency, along with Eli Lilly and a few other corporations.

8) I am a senator and if you think that means I should represent the best interests of the working people of my state, you are wrong.

9) I am a senator and if you don't like this, do a Cheney and Go F*ck Yourself.

In closing I leave you with this version of the Woody Guthrie classic...

This land is my land and this land is my land.
From the California oil wells to the New York Wall Street.
From the Redwood forests to the Gulf Stream oil fields.
This land was made for me and me.

The media should include his connection to Wellpoint when reporting every statement by Bayh.

Who in the Fuck do these people think they are? I have about had it with the insanity of all the Hill People. I am all for the Nuclear option: one Nuke on the whole lot of them. As some have said, Let God sort them out. I, for one, have no use for the obfuscating, immoral trash that claims to represent my interests and welfare. Money won't buy enough protection from the rabble when they get desperate enough. We'll starve them out of their Estates and watch them plead for food and water, like they have made the rest of us do.

How Sweet It Is!

Act 2.

Act 1 was the quest for bipartisanship. Act 2 is the quest for the 60 votes to stop a filibuster. It's all theater.

Act 3 is reconciliation. I think Reid and the White House have known that all along. Acts 1 and 2 were merely to keep the process moving. Failure to pass this isn't an option for the administration and Democratic Party, and they know it.

His wife is a whore for the medical industry, and when you lay down with whores you wake up with crabs. Bayh is infested.

FreeProton,

Why doesn't your reasoning apply to EVERY bill? If you don't like a bill, why would you ever let it be voted on? Why not filibuster every bill that you oppose?

The answer is that if that becomes the norm, then in effect we have made 60% the margin for passing a bill, not a simple majority. We might as well get rid of the filibuster, and change the rules about what percentage is needed to pass a bill.

This would, in my mind, give a tremendous advantage to Republicans, because filibusters just prevent Senate work from being done, and Republicans don't WANT any work to be done.

Putting the clout in cloture

Democrats and other supporters of health care reform have a very simple message for center-right Dems who oppose fixing the system: just let the Senate vote.

Sure that's the message. But it needs to be bolstered by the threat of punishments and the lure of rewards. Here is Josh Marshall on who has the power going forward:

Reid et al. have to run the table, get every last member of the Democratic caucus to vote for cloture. And thus they're literally hostage to the electoral anxiety, showboating or mere nonsense of every last one of them. Not just Lieberman, but Lincoln, Bayh, Landrieu, Nelson and others. Any of them can knock the train off the tracks.

* A way of seriously threatening their chances of election if they vote against cloture.
* A way of rewarding their behavior if they vote for cloture.

Lieberman, Lincoln, Bayh, Landrieu, Nelson understand CAMPAIGN MONEY. It is their life blood. And so that is how you reward them for voting for cloture and punish them for voting against it. So here is the crux:

Some bright person needs to figure out a legal way to create an escrow account that "We the Little People" can micro-fund. The account will be used to reward or punish the Senator SOLELY based on his/her vote on cloture. Vote for cloture they get the money for their relection. Vote against cloture and the money goes to fund their leading opponent (even a Republican) in the next election.

A few million here...
And a few million there...

It is the only way to get the best government "we the people" can buy.

What neill and FreeProton said.

Bayh could make the convenient distinction of process and policy votes if he had only IN voters to account to, but his real masters aren't so easily bamboozled.

Bayh isn't helping Republicans, he's helping the insurance industry.

Keep your eye on the ball here, Steve.

Bayh split a vote two weeks ago. Voted yes on cloture for H.R. 3183 and then no against the final bill. I want someone to ask him about that and how he reconciles that flip flop with his cloture = final passage stance.

At some point, these "moderate" democrats need to have a little chat with the president, and a few others, with Rahm to drive the point home. How simple does the picture need to be painted?@@??!!! "Look. You are a democrat. I am the president. I want this bill voted on. Get the picture, moron?"

Uperdown. Like Richard Wang noted, that's what Republicans yelled every time Senate Democrats tried to slow anything down. Let it go to the floer for an uperdown vote.

That's what I'm yelling now. Uperdown.

You know what else Bayh can do? he can kiss my lily white ass.

Bayh is helping Republicans for no reason.

Other than his wife, who sits on the board of Wellpoint, which stands to lose some of its profits if health insurance reform is enacted.

Bayh is helping Republicans for corrupt -- and obviously so -- reasons.

Bayh's wife is on the Wellpoint board, and Max Baucus' chief of staff is a former Wellpoint executive.

WTF? In what kind of democracy is shit like this OK? The lack of outrage over these obvious conflicts of interests says to me that our democracy is in the crapper.

He's a BayhPartisan!

Liberals can't have it both ways on cloture votes.

We criticized Joe Lieberman for helping Alito reach the Supreme Court by voting for cloture, though Lieberman then voted against Alito.

If Evan Bayh sincerely believes that the health care reform is bad for America, then he should filibuster it.

Liberals can't have it both ways on cloture votes.

Umm... one little problem with that line of reasoning. Republicans didn't have 60 in their caucus, so they needed a defector from the other party, which they found in Lieberman. Now that same defector is saying he will bail on a caucus that has 60 votes, which the electorate generously gave in Nov.

Liberals aren't "having it both ways". Liberals are getting double dutch screwed by a fucking backstabbing traitor.

oh my on -

My point is that Senators who filibuster health care reform should be criticized for being corrupt or for having bad judgement.

Not for failing to make a distinction between a cloture vote and a main vote.

I don't think it's Harry Reid pushing the 'never punish anyone' line. I think if you want to blame someone for that, look to the white house and point your fingers.

If the minority actively espouses the idea that there is no difference between the procedural and the actual, isn't that justification enough to eliminate the cloture vote from the Senate rules, or lower it from 60 to a simple majority? Clearly the Senate does not work as intended if senators equate the cloture vote with the actual vote.

You all sit here and talk about the nuclear option and have no idea what will happen if they use it. First the use of reconcillation has never been used this way.....if they use it they are declaring a war they cannot afford. Do you realize how the republicans will retaliate. No one I repeat no one will ever come up for appointment over the next 3 years. Senators have the power to place a hold on any confirmation, until that hold is removed, no up or down vote. That is just one way under the senate's parlimentary rules........ever wonder why neither side has used this.....it is considered an act of war!

the one thing that the republicans have that is different than dem is they stick together they no where their loyalaties are and it is with the money dem like to say they are for the people and want the money at the same time there is an old saying a house divided is a house that will fall and it seems as though the dem house is falling they control both houses and the pres if they can't get everything that they want then it's their fault they asked for sixty we gave them sixty they wanted the white house we gave the the white house they wanted the house of rep we gave them that so now if you don't give us what we want and need don't look for us at the polls next time we will just sit the next one out

Can Steve Benen -- or anyone else for that matter -- explain to us why in the holy hell Reid doesn't just use reconciliation to get this done?

Seriously -- why?

The American people don't give a shit if the bill is seen as "partisan" and certainly give less of a shit the way it's brought to a vote.

Just do reconciliation and be done with the damn thing already. No more games. No more stalling. No idiotic Senators blocking the entire thing.

First the use of reconcillation has never been used this way

Bullshit. The GOP used it to pass numerous bills when they were in the majority. And Dems didn't bring the Senate to a complete standstill in a whiny hissy fit afterward.

Of course, the GOP is known for throwing whiny hissy fits over made up stuff, so you're probably right that they'd do what you say in this case. And if they do, the solution is simple:

CHANGE THE FUCKING RULES OF THE SENATE!

They're not set in stone, they're not in the Constitution and, for the most part, only subvert the democratic process. They can be changed if Dems really wanted them to be.

They don't because Dems are, by and large gutless turds when it comes to standing up to the GOP.

I've actually never bought this argument. It's not about voting for or against the bill, it's about stopping something from becoming a law or not.

Obviously I don't think it should be stopped, but it makes no sense if you want to stop the law, from letting it get to an up or down vote. Of course the filibuster makes no sense either.

The rules should be changes so that ALL filibusters require talking.

As others have pointed out, Senator Wellpoint has valid reasons for doing what he's doing: Personal Family Wealth.

What's a little surprising is that he's out in the open. For the most part, he's stayed in the weeds because the connection with Big Health is far more direction than his fellow ConservaDems (who merely have been bought off with campaign contributions and likely future lobbying gigs when they retire). Bayh's are rather direct.

I've always thought he wants the cover of Blanche and Nelson, and also Snowe if possible, to help water things down. He doesn't want to see the whole thing fail as he'd take a chunk of the heat on it. But he does want what passes to be a failures in all things other than the handout to Big Health. So he's really need others to be the public faces while he works behind the scenes to stoke the fires.

Surprising that he jumps into the open because there are any number of Senators and Congressmen who are getting pretty passionate about this, and after having to fight off GOP Death Panel nonsense are going to be pretty bitchy fighting off Bayh. They tend to play nice to Nelson and Blanche because there's mild justification for their votes (though not really against cloture). But Bayh has none... other than Family Wealth.

John

These "new democrats" (Bayh, Nelson. Landrieu, Liberman, etc.) so much remind me of the old Dixiecrats, who would wax eloquent on high-falutin' principles of constitutionalism, states rights, budget concerns, and so on, in order to keep black and brown people "in their place." If health reform fails, future historians will categorize the short list above with Helms, Thurmond, Russell, Talmadge, et. al. as obstructionists of the highest order.

He's saying this because he knows that if it comes to the floor it will pass. So the only way of stopping it is voting no on cloture...after all Bayh's opinion should be everyone's opinion, right?

The filibuster has never worked for dems because of corporate dems and the repubs use it consistently to prevent dems from passing any legislation not watered down to the point of being virtually meaningless...and they have abused it through constant use...so please dems...get rid of the filibuster while you are in the majority so we can get legislation passed or you might as well just give 41 senators control of the senate.

so please dems...get rid of the filibuster while you are in the majority

IIRC, rule changes require a 2/3 vote.

Bayh is simply a money grabbing opportunist. His wife makes big money from health insurance companies. They own a large chunk of stock in insurance companies. Bayh gets cash contributions from his insurance employers that total in the millions.
If last June you didn't know how Bayh would vote, then you are very naive.

As others have noted ... Wellpoint, Wellpoint, Wellpoint.

Bought and paid for.

Bayh is the naive one to think that private ins. companies will clean up their act. We need a non-profit model like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wai0OkKC1O8&feature=player_embedded

Someone said: "The rules should be changes so that ALL filibusters require talking"

The fact of the matter is all filibusters DO require you talk. The problem with the wusses in the Senate is that never require the opposition to DO an actual filibuster. It's always the *threat* of one that makes them back down. Come on, Dems. Make them actually STAND THERE in the well of the Senate do a REAL filibuster!