November 10, 2009
JUDD GREGG'S SILLY THREAT.... Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) appeared on the Fox Business Network yesterday, and was asked about the health care reform bill approved by the House over the weekend. He said the Senate version would have to be significantly different ... or else.
"If this bill is in any way near the form it came out of the House ... we will definitely try to filibuster it," Gregg said.
Ya don't say. Republicans? Filibuster? Imagine that.
As threats go, this is pretty silly. The Senate minority "will definitely try to filibuster" any health care bill that comes to the floor, whether it resembles the House version or not. Indeed, they'll filibuster any bill that comes to the floor, whether it has to do with health care or not. Judd Gregg's threat makes it sound as if obstructionism isn't necessarily inevitable. That's absurd.
Meanwhile, at least one other Senate Republican is optimistic about the GOP caucus having some influence in the process going forward.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, one of three GOP senators to vote for the Democratic-authored economic stimulus plan earlier this year, said moderates from both parties are discussing potential areas of agreement. [...]
Collins was optimistic about the GOP role, saying, "I believe we can put together a bipartisan bill that could cover so many areas where there's agreement on what should be done."
For crying out loud. After all we've seen this year, Susan Collins is still talking about the possibility of "a bipartisan bill"? This from a senator who considers a weak "trigger" measure an undue imposition on those nice insurance companies?
We've been through this. For the better part of the year, Dems reached out to Republicans, trying to find common ground. GOP leaders didn't leave any ambiguities about their approach -- Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl said Senate Republicans will reject the reform proposal no matter how many concessions Democrats make, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the GOP caucus fundamentally rejects the very ideas and principles behind Democratic reform efforts.
There's nothing especially wrong with that -- the opposition party is supposed to oppose -- but the notion of "a bipartisan bill" is about as likely as Judd Gregg voting for cloture.
—Steve Benen 8:30 AM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (23)
I hope Bernie Sanders and a few other 'sane' Democrats join them. I cant believe the house passed this junk.
Posted by: par4 on November 10, 2009 at 8:31 AM | PERMALINK
This crop of Republicans would filibuster a sunrise. The fact is they have dropped out of the legislative process. Pay them no mind. The only "Republican" the Democrats need is Traitor Joe and they can squash him like a bug if he joins the Republican filibuster.
Posted by: Ron Byers on November 10, 2009 at 8:33 AM | PERMALINK
This crop of Republicans would filibuster a sunrise.
Too true. Didn't they even manage to accidentally filibuster one of their own bills last year?
Posted by: low-tech cyclist on November 10, 2009 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINK
the opposition party is supposed to oppose
Do you have a macro for this phrase, Steve? You do love it.
The opposition party is not "supposed to oppose" every single action of the majority party regardless of its merit and even when said action directly advances the opposition party's stated goals and principles.
Posted by: shortstop on November 10, 2009 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINK
I blame Max Baucus for letting Grassley and the gang slow walk things so that nothing was done in time for the August madhouse. People blame President Obama for not getting anything done. How can he get anything done with the Democrats we have in congress? With President Obama in the White House and Democratic majorities in the house and senate, the healthcare reform bill should have been a cake walk. It's just embarrassing.
Posted by: Ladyhawke on November 10, 2009 at 8:37 AM | PERMALINK
"the opposition party is supposed to oppose"
Agreed with shortstop and Ron Byers: eff that noise. The opposition party is supposed to have different governing priorities, and to attempt to help govern the country in a way that reflects its different priorities. But it's supposed to help govern the country. To mindlessly oppose and obstruct every function of the government, which is what the GOP does, is unpatriotic.
Posted by: Matt W on November 10, 2009 at 8:41 AM | PERMALINK
What Gregg is "threatening" is simply to exercise his First Amendment rights to warn Americans of the dangers of obamacare.
Posted by: Al on November 10, 2009 at 8:41 AM | PERMALINK
I come back to what I said in the previous thread, the "health care reform" being proposed is a mess. I have yet to be convinced that if the senate bill is anything like the house bill, it shouldn't be opposed on grounds that it will hurt working class Americans. Hurting working class Americans might be just what we expect from Republicans, but in the long term caving to the insurance industry damages the Democratic party.
Posted by: Ron Byers on November 10, 2009 at 8:45 AM | PERMALINK
Why not "threaten" Republicans with a single payer plan?
Posted by: bill on November 10, 2009 at 8:48 AM | PERMALINK
Why aren't sane dems working, not just on what will be a near impossibility to remove the stupack stain, but on other amendments that might help either make lemonade out of lemons or to poison pill the stupack stain? Lemonade--an amendment that states if congress is going to make moral and personal decisions for over half of America then congress will ensure some sanity by requiring all picies must cover every type of birth control in existence, including morning after, and that all pharmacists must dispence them regardless of moral hesitancy. PoisoN pill--prohibit coverage for risky activities such as any hunting accident or self inflicted gunshot wounds, injuries from off road recreational vehicle use, ED and similar pills and treatments of any kind (if god wanted you to have sex he would give you morning or evening wood), and things like that.
Posted by: Bubba on November 10, 2009 at 8:48 AM | PERMALINK
Maybe it's time to set aside the public option, get a bipartisan bill, then go back and pass the public option as a budget reconciliation measure?
Posted by: acorvid on November 10, 2009 at 8:50 AM | PERMALINK
The senate can pass a bill without a public option and then reinsert it in conference. The problem isn't the public option or the Stupak side show, it is the rest of the damn bill. We really need to expand coverage and control costs. You know, achieve the goals discussed during the campaign.
Posted by: Ron Byers on November 10, 2009 at 8:58 AM | PERMALINK
Why not "threaten" Republicans with a single payer plan?
Because threats are only effective when there's a chance in hell they can be carried out.
Posted by: shortstop on November 10, 2009 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK
What Gregg is "threatening" is simply to exercise his First Amendment rights to warn Americans of the dangers of obamacare.
The reason we're laughing at Gregg - and at you too now, Al - is that the thought that Gregg and the rest of the Senate GOP caucus wouldn't attempt a filibuster never even crossed our minds.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist on November 10, 2009 at 9:05 AM | PERMALINK
Memo to Harry Reid:
The Republicans are going to oppose everything you try to do, every step of the way. So, to hell with them. Move ahead with your legislative agenda without regard for those assholes.
Posted by: horatio on November 10, 2009 at 9:10 AM | PERMALINK
NYT becomes Fox News -- headline on the frontpage of nyt.com: "Democrats Raise Alarms Over Costs of Health Bills". The main objections discussed in the article come from.... Susan Collins.
Posted by: jerbo on November 10, 2009 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK
Senator Gregg - Again?!?
Can you believe that the Obama Administration once offered a Cabinet position to this bozo?
Were they thinking if he was in the Cabinet, he'd be under adult supervision, and they'd look "bipartisan"? Surely it wasn't because of any confidence in his judgement or abilities?!
Posted by: Zandru on November 10, 2009 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK
It is as predictable as the sunrise -- the left wing of the progressive movement will end up joining forces with the GOP to try to gather votes against the Health Care Reform Bill. Dennis Kucinich, the one that claimed to be the only true liberal in the race, voted against the bill.
They do this, not because of this or that provision of the bill, but because it is their form of self-justifying triangulation -- they actually despise "incrementalist" Democrats more than they care about building a governing majority. Kucinich will never be a Waxman, or a Ted Kennedy. His only claim to fame is that he is further to the left than all the Democrats, and so he ends up with the GOP.
Posted by: tom in ma on November 10, 2009 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK
It seems to me that there have been only threats of a filibuster, but I haven't seen any of those threats come to full fruition.
Can anyone point me to an instance this year in which the GOP ACTUALLY FILIBUSTERED?
Posted by: bdop4 on November 10, 2009 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK
The impression gleaned after all these years from the drumming , C/O the ever responsive knee jerkarama echoic chamber , was for all purposes intended to , with maximum effrontery , clearly and loudly cry wolf at the first hint of government .
That seems at odds with a moral obligation to oppose . Knee jerkers or responsible opposition ? If you need to think about that , you are , or will soon be , a target .
Posted by: FRP on November 10, 2009 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK
I think this is potentially unfair to Collins. She's the sort of Republican, rare enough, who's actually capable of persuasion on the merits; and the public option does stand on the merits. If she can be persuaded of it, and the voters of her state can, then she becomes a potential way around Snowe or Lieberman, and also gives Ben Nelson Republican cover. Indeed, she gives Snowe cover too, and her consitutency is Snowe's. Talking to Collins could well get two for the price of one, and if I was on the DNC I'd *strongly* consider a heavy advertising hit on it in Maine.
Well, that or larding the bill with lobster-fishing subsidies.
Posted by: toro toro on November 10, 2009 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK
They can't very well primary her either, and she knows it. Not in Maine.
Posted by: toro toro on November 10, 2009 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK
Steve, I wish you'd stop using this sentence: "There's nothing especially wrong with that -- the opposition party is supposed to oppose"
Why?
Congress critters are supposed to vote on what is good for the country NOT what their party's ideology requires.
Posted by: bruno on November 10, 2009 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK