Well of course there is a reason to side with Repugnants!

It is because the people are not the principle constituents of these Clown Car Senators! It's the corporations. And they don't want to stop feeding these folks into the firey maw of Moloch, er, Profit.

Or, to quote the last preznit: "Who cares what you think."

Do the people who favor cloture but oppose the bill itself realize that it's easier to block the bill at cloture than to defeat it in a straight-up majority vote? I'm skeptical that they do.

See, if e.g. Blanche Lincoln votes against cloture and that kills the bill, she can go home to Arkansas and say "I fought and beat the health-care bill" and people who opposed the bill are going to like that. They aren't going to say "But I wanted to allow a vote on it!"

The obstructing senators aren't playing to the public, they're playing for specific organizations that have done them favors. These organizations and their lobbyists understand the game, and when they've paid for a "No" vote, they want that vote used to obtain the result they paid for.

It amazes me that it costs so little for corporations to lobby for laws that earn them enormous sums in return. $200k can buy a vote that's ultimately worth millions or billions. Companies would be stupid or even negligent not to try.

This will only work if there's an actual media strategy during any filibuster.

But how likely are they to have that?

To me, voting against debating is truly un-American/democratic. They are so narrow minded that they don't want to even want to talk about it ??

It would be nice if Reid would play to the media a little more and since it pols nicely, let's do what MNPundit mentions, get a media strategy.

As neill and ElegantFowl have already said, the Business Dog Dems aren't trying to please the voters in their states; they're trying to please the corporations that contribute to their campaign chests.

Those guys won't be fooled at all by voting 'yea' on cloture and 'nay' on passage of the bill.

See, if e.g. Blanche Lincoln votes against cloture and that kills the bill, she can go home to Arkansas and say "I fought and beat the health-care bill" and people who opposed the bill are going to like that. They aren't going to say "But I wanted to allow a vote on it!"

If Blanche Lincoln does any of those things, she's toast regardless. But you're missing the larger point about obstructionism.

I can't imagine Blanche Lincoln is worried about the impact of her cloture vote on her election prospects. How many average voters follow the procedural nuances of the Senate?

Any democratic senator threatening to join a republican filibuster is doing so because they are being pressured by the health insurance industry, not their constituents. It's not the voters of Arkansas who are going to be angry if Lincoln votes for cloture.

Gee, I'm trying to remember if this writer was all for cloture when Bush was president and Republicans controlled Congress. Err, Steve wasn't for cloture on judges and many other issue back then, was he? Back then, he probably wrote about how wonderful the movie, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" was, with the famous Jimmy Stewart filibuster.

Any Republican who falls for this editorial piece is stupid. The moment Democrats lose their majority, this writer will go back loving the filibuster and hoping everyone forgot he ever wrote this piece.

Who gives a @#%$ whether it is debated on the Senate floor or not? It is being debated on every network, every talk radio show, in every office and home in America - against the wishes of Democrats, I should add, who are so impatient to get this done, they would have preferred to vote for a bill even they hadn't had time to read (most still haven't). Once the bill goes to the Senate floor, these jokers will have already made up their minds one way or another. The important thing is to have a debate when it matters, when things can still be changed, and that's already happening.

What the author actually wants, of course, is not debate, but a chance for the Democratic majority to ram the bill through before it loses any more support. When put that way, it doesn't really sound quite as noble, does it?

"Who give a *#%$ whether it is debated on the Senate floor or not?"

Apparently a supermajority of the citizens of Arkansas, Nebraska and Lousiana at a minimum. I fully understand your repugnance at the thought of any democratic (note the small "d") action being taken on the floor of the Senate as it might imperil your desired outcome and I wish I could say I sympathize. I can't, though.
Oh, and I hope I quoted you accurately...

"It is being debated...against the wishes of the Democrats..."
I can only hope that the level of the HCR debate has reached a higher plane in those places you mentioned, because it certainly hasn't in the MSM, what with "death panels", "pulling the plug on granny", "cutting Medicare by $500 billion" and other lies too numerous to mention getting all the headlines. And that bit about debate being against the wishes of the Democrats? You wish! Those who understand what is in the bill support it, those who don't understand what it contains are the ones who don't support the bill. That should tell you something, but I don't think you'll like the answer.

Your third and fourth sentences make no sense at all. One the major reasons FOR any debate is to present arguments for and against the proposed legislation and, hopefully, change the minds of some of those who have already "made up their minds". There are actually times when words DO have a power to change men's positions. Perhaps this debate will be one of those times.
As for having a debate "when it matters, when things can still be changed, and that's already happening"; haven't you been reading (or watching) the news? The HCR debate will be BEFORE the vote, so it does matter. Amendments can be introduced and voted on, sections of the bill can be deleted, all sorts of things may occur. I am at a loss to make any sense out of that last phrase: "and that's already happening", perhaps you could?

"What the author wants is not debate..."
Has the CIA contacted you concerning your ability to read minds? I thought not...

"...the Democratic majority to ram the bill through..."
In parliamentian-speak that is known as "passing" legislation. It is a concept that was held near and dear, I understand, by those who wrote the Constitution that established the Senate that is going to debate the bill that will probably cause many bitter tears to be shed by you. Whew!

"When put that way, it doesn't really sound quite as noble..."
Noble, smoble, It's not as if liberals actually cared about anything, you know. We're just here to make life miserable for Republicans. Seems to be working, too!