Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

December 17, 2009

THE SEARCH FOR 60 CONTINUES.... Last night on the Fox Business Channel, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) raised a few eyebrows when he said he's inclined to vote against the health care bill. It's worth keeping in mind, though, what Sanders means.

"I'm struggling with this. As of this point, I'm not voting for the bill.... I'm going to do my best to make this bill a better bill, a bill that I can vote for, but I've indicated both to the White House and the Democratic leadership that my vote is not secure at this point."

Any scenario in which the bill gets 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster would almost certainly rely on Sanders' vote, so his remarks raised new concerns about the feasibility of the legislation.

But before opponents of the health care plan get too encouraged, keep in mind that Sanders hates Republican filibusters. When he says he's "not voting for the bill," Sanders is almost certainly talking about the final bill -- unlike center-right members of the caucus, Sanders makes a distinction between the procedural vote and the legislative vote.

Indeed, he always has. In July, the Vermont senator said, "I think the strategy should be that every Democrat, no matter whether or not they ultimately end up voting for the final bill, is to say we are going to vote together to stop a Republican filibuster." He repeated the sentiment in October, arguing that it's incumbent on "every member of the Democratic caucus to vote yes to stop Republican filibusters."

It's extremely unlikely that Sanders would reverse course on this commitment.

The more daunting challenge, at this point, is Sen. Ben Nelson's (D-Neb.) vote, who is willing to join a Republican filibuster. His concern continues to be language on indirect abortion subsidies (language that he's changed his mind on more than once).

As of yesterday afternoon, Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), another pro-life Dem, delivered to Nelson a new proposal with additional restrictions on federal financing of abortion. Will it be good enough? The Washington Post reported, "Nelson also told reporters that he is waiting for antiabortion groups back home in Nebraska to weigh in."

In other words, instead of reading the Casey measure and making up his mind, Nelson wants to know if opponents of abortion rights back home will accept it -- effectively letting the Nebraska Right to Life Committee decide whether the U.S. Senate can vote up or down on health care reform.

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (44)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

"But before opponents of the health care plan get too encouraged, keep in mind that Sanders hates Republican filibusters. When he says he's "not voting for the bill," Sanders is almost certainly talking about the final bill -- unlike center-right members of the caucus, Sanders makes a distinction between the procedural vote and the legislative vote."

Why is Bernie Sanders going to vote for cloture on a bill that will make health insurance for Vermonters more expensive and more crappy?

Steve Benen is on the side of the corrupt health insurers. Bernie Sanders may have a different opinion.

Posted by: Petey on December 17, 2009 at 8:04 AM | PERMALINK

Kill the bill.

Posted by: par4 on December 17, 2009 at 8:12 AM | PERMALINK

Also worth noting that Sanders said we ought to go to reconciliation.

You get to reconciliation by stopping the current Senate bill.

Steve Benen likes shilling for the health insurance companies that have bought off so many "Democratic" pundits in Washington, but Bernie Sanders might actually care about healthcare policy.

Posted by: Petey on December 17, 2009 at 8:16 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, kill the bill, because we all know that effective governance depends on tantrums, hysteria and tea baggers. I'm not sure which is worse, the whiny progressives or the "just say no" Repugs. At least the latter are consistent, and don't seem to go "boo-hoo" and give up the way that the former do.

Posted by: Noogs on December 17, 2009 at 8:16 AM | PERMALINK

Can we please stop referring to Bob Casey as a "pro-life Dem"? He is anti-abortion, or anti-abortion rights.

Posted by: Chris K on December 17, 2009 at 8:31 AM | PERMALINK

So Noogs denounces "tantrums" while throwing one. Very symptomatic of the intellectual bankruptcy of the shit-sandwich-eaters. They can't even try to defend this fraudulent "reform" any more (if they've actually even bothered to find out anything about the actual provisions of the Liebermanized Senate bill, which no longer even has insurance regulations with teeth- it's pretty much a pure insurance company bailout at this point) so they just lash out.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on December 17, 2009 at 8:35 AM | PERMALINK

Me thinks Petey has a problem with Steve,take it some where else Petey. Please. I'm not sure yet how I feel about the Senate Bill but no one wants to kill reform except right wingers. We still have some steps to go. Reconciliation is still an option. Stripping Health Care Industry give aways in the final bill, etc.

What does scare me are the scare tactics coming from the WH. Shades of Bush/Cheney.

Posted by: Candi on December 17, 2009 at 8:35 AM | PERMALINK

The Media, like the blue-dog-s*** and Rs, blur the distinction between 60 for cloture, or to vote for the Bill. Even here we still need more carefully parsed discussion of how many votes each choice gets, separately.

BTW I don't think Steve B is on the side of the insurance companies as such, he follows a line of reasoning that Democrats need to pass "some kind of Bill", maybe it can be improved, some Party loyalty etc. Those are debatable, and at least he doesn't disdain "left-wing bloggers" in principle like the really pricky sector of the SC/Liberal Establishment. But I'd still like to see more acknowledgment and attempt to understand the anger, sense of betrayal etc. many of us have over the glib handling of the Public Option. There also must be nullification of the exemption from anti-trust for insurance companies.

Important point: the suspicion or rejection from people like the Dean brothers is not because they don't get something as good as they want, and have to settle for something inferior but still "good." It's OK to make that kind of choice in keeping with authentic perfect v. good reasoning. But here we have a case where - because a mandate could actually make things *worse* without a PO and stronger regulation - critics are perhaps rightly making the good-to-perfect the enemy of the bad. Remember that, you who keep whining about "whiners" around here and elsewhere.

Posted by: neil b on December 17, 2009 at 8:35 AM | PERMALINK

"BTW I don't think Steve B is on the side of the insurance companies as such"

You would be surprised at how high the percentage of "Democratic" pundits in Washington who are either currently on the take from the health insurers, or plan to move through the revolving door and get on the take from the health insurers in the near term future.

The health insurers tend to be the main source of lifetime income for the bulk of "Democratic" opinion-makers inside the Beltway.

Posted by: Petey on December 17, 2009 at 8:39 AM | PERMALINK

Petey, are you a rethug troll in disguise?

The standard rethugnican approach is to attack everyone that disagrees with them. I have followed Benen's discussions on this topic and do not understand how you would come to the belief that Benen is a shill for the health insurance companies?

My level of disgust for dumbocraps keeps growing and I am about at the point where I believe that this apparent piece of corporate give-away crap should be killed. On that, I obviously disagree with Benen. My disagreements with Benen on this and other issues does not make him a front man for corporate interests!

Today's Quiz: What is the difference between rethug senators and dumbocrap senators?

Answer: Rethug senators are 100% owned by corporate and wealthy interests. Dumbocrap senators are only 75% owned by corporate and wealthy interests.

It keeps getting harder to differentiate between them.

Posted by: AngryOldVet on December 17, 2009 at 8:39 AM | PERMALINK

Candi, no wants wants to kill *reform* except right-wingers, but many of us, for good reasons, are not sure this Bill really is "reform." Can you get that? And WTF about criticizing the BO, they aren't Messiahs who can't be criticized. I agree we shouldn't question motives without cause, but they are as subject to critique as anyone. It's whiny right-wingers you know (the chickensquawks) that either don't have comments, or censor their critics and overly effective members of the opposition.

Posted by: neil b. on December 17, 2009 at 8:40 AM | PERMALINK

If Sanders and a couple of other progressives want to vote against the bill, that's fine, as long as they support cloture. Also, it's bad enough reading Petey's nonsensical rants at Yglesias's. We have to read them here now too? WTF?

Posted by: John on December 17, 2009 at 8:41 AM | PERMALINK

Petey is not a republican, that's just absurd.

He is right, though. Obama will clearly not let this bill die. Kill it in the Senate and he will be forced to use reconciliation no matter how much he loves his exchanges.

Posted by: soullite on December 17, 2009 at 8:43 AM | PERMALINK

"I have followed Benen's discussions on this topic and do not understand how you would come to the belief that Benen is a shill for the health insurance companies?"

He's been faithfully repeating the Podesta health insurance company talking points all year long.

Posted by: Petey on December 17, 2009 at 8:45 AM | PERMALINK

You would be surprised at how high the percentage of "Democratic" pundits in Washington who are either currently on the take from the health insurers, or plan to move through the revolving door and get on the take from the health insurers in the near term future.

Also, you'd be surprised at the number of people named Peter who are Satan-worshipping pedophiles with piles of unpaid parking tickets. I'm not saying I have any evidence you are one of these, Petey. I'm just saying you'd be surprised.

Posted by: bonds in seconds on December 17, 2009 at 8:46 AM | PERMALINK

Bernie Sanders and H. Dean are right. I listened to H Dean on C Matthews last night.Even though C Matthews used his gaitling gun method to avoid the truth to issues, H.Dean was able to note that M'care can be extended by changing the fine print in a the legislation. That's all that needs to be done. Then up or down vote. Rep Weiner said the President is not using his power to buy in to this. Therefore I have made the determination that President Obama is willing to sacrifice Americans to have a bill that is for the insurance conpanies, by the insurance companies and rips off Americans. President Obama yet again puts politics over principle. He lied just like Lieberman to get into office. Also the way Gibbs treated H. Dean at the news conference is dispicable and proves the point Obams is willign to give to insurance and pharmaceuticals rather than americans. Gibss and Obama would not be there if it weren't for H. Dean and his winning process for the Democratic party. The politicians have skewered Americans in a bi partisan way.

Posted by: MLJohnston on December 17, 2009 at 8:47 AM | PERMALINK

"Also, it's bad enough reading Petey's nonsensical rants at Yglesias's."

You no longer have to.

They've been "moderating" comments since Monday when the White House came out for the Lieberman HealthCare Privatization Act.

------

The Podestas (the folks for whom Yglesias works) are paid lobbyists for Cigna and HealthSouth. We all know that, right?

Posted by: Petey on December 17, 2009 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

Steve LaBonne have you read this bill because I haven't? All I know is what I am hearing from both sides. I haven't read the bill because it hasn't been written in it's final form and also it has to go to committee with the House before it becomes a final bill.

My problem is in writing a bill that protects private health insurance companies you have to "protect" them and to me that is bad for Americans. Especially when you require Americans to purchase a product by law with no cost controls which, it is my understanding this bill lacks. Will it be 15% of your income, 20%, 30%?

Posted by: Candi on December 17, 2009 at 8:50 AM | PERMALINK

Bonds-in-seconds, Petey is referring to known facts about the incestuous relationships between many Democrats and industry forces. I won't accuse a give individual of that without things like money trails etc., but the overall characterization is spot on.

Posted by: neil b on December 17, 2009 at 8:51 AM | PERMALINK

In a number of ways and in a number of areas, I have been extremely disappointed with Obama.

Still..

Each morning, I thank my god that John McCrap is not the president.

Each morning, I thank my god twice that Billary is not the president.

Each morning, I do not thank my god that Obama is the president.

Posted by: SadOldVet on December 17, 2009 at 8:55 AM | PERMALINK

Candi- I'm in the same position as everyone else; since there's no one text to refer to, I gather information from as many sources as possible. But I can tell you, for example, that the rescission prohibition has been weakened with a huge loophole for "fraud", which is the excuse the companies use NOW when they rescind policies so how does that change anything? And the subsidies, in addition to being inadequate (and likely to be quickly overrun by premium hikes which the bill does nothing to control) don't, as of now, go fully into effect until 2014 (just as the penalties for not buying insurance escalate over that time span). That means the deficit hawks will have plenty of time to kill the subsidies before they go into effect, leaving us with just the mandates but no help in affording them.

The insurance companies got what they very badly want- the mandates. The rest of us get a shit sandwich. Apologists need to get over their reflexive "pass anything" mentality and seriously analyze these proposals and their likely policy and political outcomes- which, in a word, are bad.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on December 17, 2009 at 8:59 AM | PERMALINK

Congratulations, "progressives". You are now every bit as screechy, unhinged, fact-free, paranoid and delusional as your right-wing teabagger counterparts.

Steve Benen is a villager! He's a paid insurance lobby shill!

Why don't you folks just start using the teabagger handbook? Stage a "die-in" rally on DC! Dust off your "Flawed reform is just like Dachau!" posters. Or have MoveOn start bussing you across the country on a "Not Enough" tour to shout down everyone that disagrees with you.

Seriously folks, it is way past the time to look in the mirror and see the teabagger staring back at you. Just a friendly reminder, "progressives" are supposed to be for progress. Progress in Washington is painful, slow and incremental - it always has been. It's a really good thing voices like yours didn't prevail during the push for Social Security, Medicare or Civil Rights.

Nothing is better than something is a crappy slogan.

Posted by: John S. on December 17, 2009 at 9:05 AM | PERMALINK
Nothing is better than something is a crappy slogan.

It's a very good slogan sense when the "something" is a step backward. (Is not poking yourself in the with a stick worse than poking yourself in the eye with a stick?) Yet again, we see that the defenders of this indefensible pile of crap are now reduced to pure invective; substantively, they've got nothing and they know it. Idiots like this don't care about policy (on health care or anything else) at all- they just like to have an excuse for a spot of hippie-bashing.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on December 17, 2009 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK

Even without single-payer, public option, and expanded medicare buy-ins, a nationally mandated health insurance scheme run by for-profit businesses could be made to work, if you treat health insurance as a public utility. The vast majority or us need to purchase water, electricity, and telephone communications, and when those are not handled by governmental agencies, they are managed by more-or-less private for-profit companies that are highly regulated in the public interest and which are tightly overseen by government commissions. It is far from an ideal way to do things: it makes more sense for the government to supply health care than to manage insurance companies, and the chances of getting effective public oversight of insurance companies out of the current group of republiscum extremists and democratic enablers is approaching zero, but in theory it could be done, because we already do it with utility companies.

If we get something out of this round of reform, we can declare that it's a success, look successful (compared to republicans, anyway), stave off electoral disaster, expand the democratic base, and get back to work to fix it properly. Should we fail, the downside is that democrats could go down in flames electorally, and hopes for doing anything about health care could be gone for 15-20 years at minimum.

Posted by: N.Wells on December 17, 2009 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINK

John S, you are so missing the point here, especially in the"fact-challenged" charge. I'm OK with you defending Steve himself, but plenty of "our" people are indeed compromised. Re-read my first comment. Very intelligent people are opposing the Bill as-is, because they have good reasons - real facts and expectations - to think it could be worse than no Bill. "Incremental" is the wrong model, because that suggests you start with something so-so, then get better, and so on. But combining mandates with little oversight or competition is a horror. As an absolute minimum, they must overthrow the anti-trust exemption to keep this whole thing from literally being a criminal enterprise. Seriously. And will "our" Party do that? Finally, it's fine to make plenty of noise the rest of the time so they know what we think, I do agree in the crunch vote for the best available.

Posted by: neil b on December 17, 2009 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

"The vast majority OF us". Sorry. And I'm thinking back to the old Ma Bell days in terms of a regulated phone company, in case that wasn't obvious.

Posted by: N.Wells on December 17, 2009 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINK

The Senate bill really stands to do more harm than good-- to health care and Democratic political fortunes. On the "big issues", Obama has repeatedly shown that he is an articulate bright chump way too easily rolled by intransigent opposition to agree to "compromises" that are policy disasters. Will no progressive declare he will vote 'No" unless he/she gets what he demands?? It might be fitting irony if the fate of real health reform would suddenly depend on Burris who could turn his public image around in the eyes of many by suddenly taking center stage and acting as an intransigent counterweight to Lieberman and Nelson. God knows, maybe Sanders might join him -- or Franken. They are both bright, progressive and appear often to have cajones sadly lacking elsewhere among Senate Democrats. God forbid any of them seriously suggest the nuclear option that Republicans in tis same position would have used 6 months ago. republicans may be insane, but they are at least gutsy insane.

Posted by: gdb on December 17, 2009 at 9:29 AM | PERMALINK

@Steve LaBonne:

I will refer you to your own comment

since there's no one text to refer to

To quote Booman, arguing about a bill that hasn't been voted on in the Senate, and more importantly, hasn't been issued a CONFERENCE REPORT is "borderline retarded". Conjecture is all fine and good, but at this point, that's all this debate really is. Undoubtedly, what comes out of the Senate (if anything) will be tainted and pretty awful, but it still needs to go through conference.

I don't really care about "hippie-bashing", but I will certainly bash the teabaggers on the left for the same reason I bash teabaggers on the right. Issuing paranoid screeds like Petey is worthy of derision no matter what "side" he's supposed to be on. You want to focus your energy on something productive? Push your highly compromised congress critters to do something about mandates that have no real cost controls. That at least seems like a card worth playing right now.

@neil b:

Of course they are compromised, but they were never "our people". The Democrats have a majority that consists of a large group of diverse interests. The ones derailing this thing and watering it down are conservatives who were NEVER progressive and NEVER with us. The only thing they got us was an illusory majority.

I agree with you about the mandates - while I think they are necessary to make the system work, without any effective mechanism to prevent insurance price manipulation it is a disaster. But that isn't the predominant argument being floated around these comments threads, now is it?

Posted by: John S. on December 17, 2009 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

I agree with you about the mandates - while I think they are necessary to make the system work, without any effective mechanism to prevent insurance price manipulation it is a disaster. But that isn't the predominant argument being floated around these comments threads, now is it?

Well, actually, it is, the continual tantrum crowd notwithstanding (and there are always going to be people who do anger better than analysis, so there's no point in wasting too much time on them...in sheer numbers, our crazies are nowhere near the right's). If you'll stroll through the threads from the past 48-72 hours, you'll find that's by far the number-one concern with the bill.

Posted by: shortstop on December 17, 2009 at 9:38 AM | PERMALINK

Copied from TPM by SD... says it the best I've yet seen
"I think people are pissed right now less at the fact that they didn't get what they wanted, and more at the fact that they feel like their people didn't really fight for it. Leaders don't always get what they want. But people recognize when true leaders at least give it a shot. And people judge that leadership by what they say in public and how hard they see them publicly pushing for it. Closed door negotiations don't count.They wanted to see Obama push the public option and say that it was crucial, important part. His broad outlines of "cuts the deficit, improves coverage" is too bland and not something people can rally around, and he gives the impression that he's ceding power and leadership to a less capable bunch in the legislative branch.
They wanted to see news stories about how "staffers close to the majority leader" say that chaimanships and other perks were on the line for any Democrat who talked about filibustering this crucial bill.

They wanted to see congressional leadership and the president campaign hard for an "up or down vote on healthcare" the way the Republicans did so effectively for the judge appointments.

But none of that happened, and the things that people care about died with a whimper.

I know there's been a lot of game theory from people about how that would never work, etc. But the fact is that you can show leadership for big ideas and there's always still room to compromise at the end. At least then it would be clear that there was no other way, that you put up the good fight, better luck next time.

Instead they feel like the people they voted for and trusted to lead them failed. And it's hard to imagine making that same emotional commitment again in the future. Self defeating, yes. Temporary, maybe. But we're talking primal stuff here - people don't like wimps, not matter what party."

Posted by: gdb on December 17, 2009 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK
If you'll stroll through the threads from the past 48-72 hours, you'll find that's by far the number-one concern with the bill.

I hope so, but I'm having a hard time seeing the forest through the crazies...

Anybody screaming to KILL THE BILL doesn't seem to interested in the pragmatic approach. But maybe cooler heads will prevail, and a cohesive message from the base can make its way to Congress.

Posted by: John S. on December 17, 2009 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

John S., now you're in the even more ridiculously untenable position of claiming we should blindly support a bill even though you (falsely) claim nobody can know anything about what's in it,only to yet again contradict yourself by finally admitting it's likely to be "pretty awful". (So Lieberman has no idea what it is that he now thinks he can vote for, and Sanders has no idea what it is that he thinks he can't vote for? Pull the other one, it has bells on.) Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive... you must be getting dizzy from all your spinning. (You also, amusingly, disclaim an interest in "hippie-bashing" then in the next breath engage in it with your moronic incantation about "teabaggers of the left".)

But the likes of you (and that annoying idiot Booman) will NOT succeed in pulling the wool over everyone's eyes about what's going on here.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne on December 17, 2009 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

Well, much of this is so depressing but I do see a way for Dems to make a case in 2010 for voting out Republicans instead of themselves: It was Republican and blue-dog-"democrat" opposition that took out the mechanisms for enforcing competition and effective regulation. So we can say, that's why your insurance costs suck. But will KISS-up voters understand such complexities, or just be mad and blame the people who voted for the Bill as it was? We'd better know the right answer.

Posted by: neil b on December 17, 2009 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

What if the bill doesn't pass ? It would leave things no worse than they are now.
I know he probably won't, but I hope Sanders votes against cloture. I for one would like to send a message to Mr. President that he flunked his ass on his first so-called reform effort, and he'd better start attending to business. Who's business ? Well, the business of the people who put him in the white house, not la President Olympia, and not Ben Nelson and the Blue Dog jazz quartet, and not Joe the big fuck head Lieberman, who the president might just recall, campaigned against him in the general election. This effort is a piece of shit that can only give the insurance industry and every other corporation the certainty that this president can be pushed around.

Posted by: rbe1 on December 17, 2009 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK

What if the bill doesn't pass ? It would leave things no worse than they are now.

Thanks, asshole. See you on the other side.

Posted by: 44,000 on December 17, 2009 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

This is the same Nebraska Right to Life group that almost succeeded in pressuring the University Board of Regents into retaining the old Bush stem cell research rules, a move that would have done serious damage to the school's reputation and ability to obtain research grant money and retain research scientists. A message for Ben Nelson: Nebraska Right to Life will endorse your Republican opponent anyway. You can't outcrazy the crazies. You do need the support of Nebraska Democrats to be reelected.

Posted by: NEskeptic on December 17, 2009 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

I don't care how much Sanders dislikes filibusters; he must realize by now that unless he threatens it, he has no leverage, and no one in the Democratic leadership will listen to a word he says.

If he really thinks the bill should not pass without significant improvement, refusing to use ALL the tools at his disposal to improve it would be a disservice to his constituents.

I'd rather get rid of the filibuster, too, but unilateral disarmament on this issue is crazy.

Posted by: American in Exile on December 17, 2009 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

Nothing is better than something is a crappy slogan.

And to say that a pile of crap is better than nothing is an even crappier slogan.

I guess we have another condescending jerk telling us that we don't know what's good for us, and another tool who thinks he knows better than folks like Dr. Dean who have been working on this issue for years.

I'm having a hard time seeing the forest through the crazies...

That's because you're willfully ignoring the substantive reasons for opposing this piece of crap, because it's easier to name-call real progressives than address their substantive objections. Which makes you just like all the other teabagging morons.
There, how's that feel? Go ahead, alienate the real progressives and activists who were the ones doing the real work to create a huge majority for your "D" team, and see how it works out for you next year. But really, at this point it doesn't matter if it's the corporate whore "R" team in the majority or the corporate whore "D" team in the majority, it's the same result either way.

The GOP and insurance industry will be secretly celebrating the passage of this bill with a mandate to buy only for-profit insurance, while at the same time publicly bashing the Dems over the heads with it nonstop until election day. See how your "we can build on this pile of crap" slogan works when you're up against that. You sure aren't fooling us, but good luck.

Posted by: Allan Snyder on December 17, 2009 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

You can't possibly know what's in this bill yet, so how can you do anything bu support it! Who cares if it makes things worse, at least the Democrats can run on it in 2010, and that's the most important thing ever in the history of humanity!

Posted by: John Stupid on December 17, 2009 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

I agree, kill it.
It is a handout to hte insurance industry and I am against it.

You knew when they wouldn't reimport drugs from Canada it was not a bill for the people.

End of story... it is worse than nothing.

Posted by: clem on December 17, 2009 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the compliment, there 44,000. I also happen to be in favor of a strong health care insurance reform bill. I just don't think this is it, asshole.
This forum is about opinions, and your calling me an asshole only serves to define you, and does nothing to refute my point, asshole. Gosh, isn't that so much better ? Now we're on the same wavelength, and the level of discourse is so much more satisfying, don't you think ?

Posted by: rbe1 on December 17, 2009 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Bernie Sanders ANOTHER mass-murderer, right?

The left is pathetic.

Posted by: dude on December 17, 2009 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

good for Sanders and Burris

"I think the strategy should be that every Democrat, no matter whether or not they ultimately end up voting for the final bill, is to say we are going to vote together to stop a Republican filibuster."

In an ideal world yes, but we have to be pragmatic and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good

Man, not fun getting that thrown in your face is it?

Posted by: jefft452 on December 17, 2009 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

Ben Nelson = Lady Elaine Fairchild

Posted by: Kevin Carson on December 18, 2009 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly