Realistically, there’s no way any of the principled centrists from Maine are going to support anything even vaguely like a public option.
And, of course, the fact that only 58 out of 100 Senators do support one just proves that we’re a center-right nation.
Jim
Cracks me up that no one ever bothers to even ask what Susan Collins thinks, it’s just assumed that Olly speaks for Senatorial delegation from the Great State of Maine.
(I think the best case scenario was 55 or 56, but of course your real point still stands.)
John
58? Seems more like 56 to me – all the Democrats except Landrieu, Lincoln, Lieberman, and Ben Nelson.
thomas Levenson
I used to be against the nuclear option in the Senate. I still think it is a good idea to make it hard to do some stuff on the hill. But this is ridiculous…especially as the reasons for opposing one of the most moderate possible changes in the delivery of health care in this country are (a) bs and (b) change as swiftly as each bit of nonsense gets called out.
These are people for whom language is not a tool of communication and argument. It is merely a kind of sound-poetry, to be deployed to give the impression of mental operations, all the while the desired end is pursued, no matter what cost.
A deliberative body. Can I haz pleeze?
GambitRF
There’s talk now of just skipping the whole committee process and just treating the Senate bill as the final bill. Because nobody cares what the House thinks anyway.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/will-senate-bill-be-public-options-waterloo/
This entire process has just been, like, an eight month long kick in the nuts.
DougJ
I guess it’s really 55 and 56. Never mind that 50.7% was the mother of all mandates in 2004.
thomas Levenson
@John: Lieberman is not a Democrat in party affiliation or practice. Caucus, yes, chairmanship yes…but he’s still not a Democrat. He is ein (very) klein Lieibocrat.
geg6
Useless fucking piece of crap house of Congress, the Senate is. I can only hope it goes the way of the House of Lords.
I mean, seriously. Look who is holding the whole goddam thing up: Landrieu, Lincoln, Lieberman, and Nelson. Collectively, those states make up how much of the US population? A fraction of a fraction? And this is who gets to decide policy for me here in PA, let alone CA or NY or FL? Fuck that.
ellaesther
Ok, I’mma come clean.
I still cannot figure out why 51 Senators can’t be made to be enough. I know a little bit about cloture and filibustering and so on — but apparently not enough.
Could someone explain this to me?
Noonan
Whatever. If the Medicare buy-in actually gets the Dems to 60 then Snowe and Collins will be playing catch-up and voting for the bill regardless. This is all posturing. Snowe and Collins aren’t voting against a bill that passes.
cleek
@ellaesther:
under the current rules, you need 60 senators to agree to stop talking about the bill before it can be brought to a vote. until you get those 60, there can be no vote.
Will
Without Snowe, they need all 60 senators to prevent a filibuster. But they can’t keep Lieberman from filibustering if a public option is included. So they discard the public option in favor of Medicare buy-in. Which Lieberman will support. But now Ben Nelson says he’ll filibuster without his “Stupak” amendment included in the bill. So they need Snowe. Who won’t support the Medicare buy-in.
Shoot Me Now.
Mark
I know that when I cast my vote for Obama here in California, I actually filled in the bubble for “President by committee of Collins, Snowe, Lieberman, Nelson and Lincoln.”
I always thought “centrists” were just trying to be cool contrarians by randomly splitting the difference on a policy here or there. Now we see that they’re just a bunch of cowards who split the difference because they don’t have the brainpower to figure out what they support. Or because, like Holy Joe, they’re having the biggest seven-year-old’s snit they possibly could on the national stage.
Unfortunately, most of America likes “independents” – the kind of person who was still thinking about McCain vs Obama as he walked into the voting booth.
El Cid
You just have to point out to Snowe how helpful the new $3 billion blueberry science center and museum to employ 10,000 people in Maine would be.
Jim
Actually, I find Snowe fascinating. She must be principled, in a delusional, willfully naive way. I’m sure she’s been offered the sun the moon and stars to flip or take and executive appointment. She sat quietly, only occasionally murmuring a hint of disapproval, while Bush and Cheney wrecked the country, including massive additions to the debt that she’s so worried about now. But she’s willing to hold the country hostage, because she can, over healthcare reform which, in the worst case scenarios, increase that big bad debt by a very small percentage of all the things she acquiesced to through two presidential terms. And she doesn’t seem, even in the slightest, to be aware of the contradiction.
eemom
@geg6:
fuck that AND fuck the fucking horse it rode in on.
The Senate and the Electoral College. What an obscene joke is American “democracy.”
Kryptik
@cleek:
Additionally, there’s the ‘gentleman’s agreement’ in the senate.
Used to be that if cloture was not invoked, debate would continue, truly continue on for days sometimes, if someone was to filibuster. The only way to break the debate was by a new vote garnering the necessary 60 votes to stop debate, or withdrawing the bill.
Now, in essence, all one has to do is state their intent to filibuster and force the cloture vote. If cloture is not invoked the first time, the bill is tabled and considered essentially dead. No need for actual extended debate or extra votes. Just say ‘I’ll filibuster’ and fight off the cloture vote, and you’ve essentially killed the bill without actually needing to have a majority vote against it.
arguingwithsignposts
Hey, we can all throw in another $25 or whatever we have to “get the word out,” according to President Obama. That should get the bill rolling, amirite?
/snark
(be sure and read the responses from AGOM and Cerberus, just so I’m fair and balanced.)
Xenos
Has anyone broken out the total population now represented by GOP Senators?
E.J. Dionne worked out the numbers back in 2005, and concluded that 52 GOP senators between themselves represented just 18% of the country (as cited at the GOS). At some point I am going to have to work that out because the number has got to be pretty low now…
Ian
@Xenos:
Your link was a hypothetical to how 18% could control the senate hypothetically. The distribution was about 55%D-45%R. That was also two elections ago, surely they have lost ground. But I doubt they are at 18%.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@eemom:
Not that I am liking it right now, but we are a republic, not a pure democracy. And when we try to be a democracy, we get people voting down rights for gays.
pcbedamned
Why is it that they need 60 votes? Doesn’t majority rule? (asks the naive Canadian:)
cleek
there was a little dust-up over this topic at Yglesias’ place yesterday – and it featured the most verbose wingnut i’ve ever encountered.
but, short answer: it depends how you count. does a Senator represent everybody in the state, or just half ?
Notorious P.A.T.
But couldn’t the leader of the Senate change the rules so that you only need, say, 55? Of course that would require courage and principle.
He could also use budget reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority vote. But apparently bipartisanship is good for our health, or something.
geg6
@Xenos:
Well, I didn’t work out the GOP state numbers, but looking at the Wiki population numbers for the states of Landrieu, Lieberman, Nelson, and Snowe, the collective population is 10, 911, 934. By comparison, California alone has 36,756,666. Hell, my state (PA) alone is 12,448,279.
This country is totally fucked.
geg6
@pcbedamned:
cleek already hit it, but you need 60 votes for cloture (shutting down debate). You can have less than 60 to pass the actual bill, but cloture requires 60.
Notorious P.A.T.
@pcbedamned:
When the US Constitution was written, individual states were given inordinate power so that none of them would get pissy and split off. Which happened anyway. But we’re still stuck with giving individual states inordinate power, somehow. It might have been a passable idea when there were 13, but we’re at 50 now and it’s getting tiresome.
Balconesfault
@Kryptik: @Kryptik:
Yep. That’s the problem.
I want to America to see the Republicans and a handful of Democrats taking to the podium day by day to defend us against the ravages of a Government run program we can buy into.
Reid should let it last a week … two weeks … the whole damn Christmas recess period.
Let Americans see that the most important thing Republicans have to do is to say “no” – and that the only way for Americans to get reform, if they want reform, is to elect less Republicans.
Conversely, if Americans are happy with the status quo, they can elect more Republicans.
I’m happy to take that chance.
tamied
You’d have to be a nut to want to be in the House or Senate.
Oh, I get it…
ericvsthem
If there is a shred of a silver lining to be found in all this, it is that more people are beginning to wake up to the fact that the Senate is hopelessly broken and in desperate need of reform. I’ve been wondering if the Senate could be forced to change their rules by constitutional challenges (something to do with the Senate having more power than the House even though the Constitution states that they are to be coequal.. or maybe a challenge that cloture rules and the filibuster are unconstitional?).
Changing the constitution is a non-starter. What other options are there?
Zifnab
@Notorious P.A.T.:
And it would have to survive an attempted filibuster. I know if I was a Senator and I was told that my real estate value was about to be chopped in half, you wouldn’t be able to shut me up.
Balconesfault
@ericvsthem: I still argue it’s a choice by Reid to be too “collegial”.
He’s allowed Lieberman to roll him repeatedly … why shouldn’t Landreiu and Nelson join the party?
arguingwithsignposts
@ericvsthem:
This.
Could it be that eventually all these egotistical shenanigans will kill the goose that laid the golden egg? I hope so.
Zifnab
@Balconesfault:
The problem is with how the filibuster rules are written. They are designed to be onerous on the majority. Anyone filibustering can demand that a quorum in the Senate be reached, or he’s allowed to stop and adjourn. 51 Dems basically have to be on hand at all times, while only one filibustering conservative needs to stand around reading from the telephone book.
cleek
more and better Democrats.
Little Dreamer
@Jim:
Actually, the senior senator almost always gets all the glory. Very few people heard about what a pain in the ass junior senator Tom Carper from DE could be until he was raised to the senior senator after Biden became VP.
Same thing.
Notorious P.A.T.
Are you sure? Is that in the Senate rules or something? I’m not doubting you, I just want to be filled in.
Notorious P.A.T.
Please!
Boy, I bet Obama is glad he got behind Lieberman instead of LaMont! Otherwise the signature legislation of his first term might be passed by now, and. . . uh. . .
Little Dreamer
@arguingwithsignposts:
Redirecting traffic because you aren’t happy with the way that thread was going? It’s so obvious. What a loser.
geg6
@Notorious P.A.T.:
Here’s the rules on cloture (which explains much about filibusters, too):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture
Actually, in order to change the Senate rule on filibusters, they would need the old 2/3s instead of the current 3/5s for your typical legislation.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
@arguingwithsignposts:
Good idea, because my latest response to you (on that other thread) pretty much blows away any shred of rationality you thought your original argument could make.
Your $25 doesn’t buy you any particular final bill, it buys you the possibility of a bill. If that isn’t worth $25 to you, if you are too stupid to understand that and pony that up, I can do it for you. Not a problem.
Idiot.
arguingwithsignposts
@Little Dreamer:
Not because I wasn’t happy with it. I stand by what I said. I’d like for more to see it and comment if they feel like it (which is never a challenge here).
backatcha
arguingwithsignposts
@AngusTheGodOfMeat:
You might check back to my latest replies too.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
@arguingwithsignposts:
Ditto. I think your cynicism is getting the best of you.
Step back from the tv and look at the actual processes involved here, and look at the ads running on that tv, and who is paying for them. They (big HMO) are firing money out of cannons. Let’s fire some back.
Balconesfault
@Zifnab:
Then let 51 Dems be there to make sure that the American People see who’s interested in legislation … and who’s just trying to stymie it.
This is now becoming about theatrics. The American people won’t have any reason to keep electing Dems if they don’t feel the Dems are fighting for them … this show would say “this is so important Dems are willing to deal with the Republican bs until they finally allow a vote”/
arguingwithsignposts
@AngusTheGodOfMeat:
Actually, I don’t own a TV, so I’m somewhat thankfully unaware of what kind of ads are going on out there. Mostly, I get my cynicism from reading BJ, GOS, Atrios, TPM and msnbc.com.
Maybe i need to stick to garden blogs or something.
Gus
Will someone who isn’t lazy provide a breakdown of how many people those 55 or 58 senators represent vs. how many the minority represents?
AngusTheGodOfMeat
They are literally bombarding the airways with these anti-reform ads, night and day. Seriously. We need to answer those attacks.
Will
I know this is obvious, but has anyone actually pinned down Snowe on what she is actually FOR in this bill? You know, just so the Dems can be sure they aren’t just bargaining the entire bill away, one piece a week to Snowe.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
No, they want to demoralize our side and leave them to have the bandwidth.
It takes dough to counteract their piles of cash. They think they can wear us down.
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
Want to change the Senate rules? That’s fine to agitate for. But keep in mind that, although it’s rarely discussed (because the GOP frankly knows better than to try, believe it or not), the same rules that are holding up this bill are more-or-less the same rules that stopped the GOP from gutting Social Security, made Bush redirect to the Prescription Drug program, and generally held them back from rolling back the Civil Rights laws, among other points, when they had the majority. Do I like that it’s so dammed hard? NO. Hell yes we need massive reform!
But I respect that Obama and OFA are trying to balance a lot of things. Frankly, the Executive branch shouldn’t be so damned involved in making legislation, even legislation I like. That way lies a certain drift in the power imbalance that I didn’t care for under Bush, and I’m glad to see some of it’s excesses pushed back.
I’ll be damned if I understand why people get pissed when it’s pointed out that we don’t elect automatons. Even if they were paragons of virtue, they are still but failed humans. That they have a million temptations in front of them means those who bitch and complain need to be more engaged, not less. And Obama built the fuckin’ structure to make that happen, and happen in the way this Republic was founded to support.
So use it. If you don’t want to send money, they can use boots on the ground. There’s a lot of misconceptions about this stuff, and the Obama campaign showed point-blank how people can change other peorple’s minds; I saw it first-hand. But I refuse to support pushing Obama to be a Liberal Bush, shoving laws — even laws that help me — through a so-called “rubber-stamp” Congress. Why the Hell have a Congress, then? And what happens when the pendulum swings again?
And before anyone sputters off about “does it affect me,” I’ll be happy to show you the stack of bills my mom had before she passed away with damn near next-to-nothing. Something a certain B. Obama knows about, as well.
eemom
@Notorious P.A.T.:
right, because Obama, then a second year senator from Illinois, had such a HUGE impact on the outcome of the Lieberman/Lamont matchup in Connecticut. Riiiiiight.
arguingwithsignposts
@AngusTheGodOfMeat:
Well, when people wearing “our” uniform keep shooting at us, it’s a war they seem to be winning.
40 years of class warfare with one side doing all the fighting (and not the 95 percent side at that) tends to give them that idea.
Little Dreamer
@arguingwithsignposts:
Thanks for confusing the issue by splitting the conversation onto two different threads (and hijacking this one). Asswipe.
Mark
Gus,
Dem Senators represent 63% of the population. Rs = 35%. Holy Joe is 0.57%. And 1.6% of the country has no senator (DC + PR + Pacific Islands)
States represented by two Republicans (Tx, Ga, Tn, Az, Al, Sc, Ky, Ok, Ms, Ks, Ut, Id, Me, Wy) are 24.5%.
ericvsthem
@Woodrow “asim” Jarvis Hill: I’ll gladly take more democratic representation over minority obstructionism – even if it means that sometimes my side is on the losing side of that bargain – thank-you-very-much.
And I think you are mistaken in your belief that civil rights legislation, social security, etc would have been rolled back without the dubious protection of the cloture vote / filibuster.
arguingwithsignposts
@Little Dreamer:
F**k you, too.
Ruckus
@arguingwithsignposts:
I don’t get broadcast or cable tv either. It moves my sanity meter off the zero peg not to look at it.
And I got the same request for money. I get all kinds of progressive orgs sending me requests for money. I’d like to get behind more/all of them. The ones I don’t get are the ones from Obama. We elected him to lead. We sent him money. We fucking won. Now I have to keep paying him to lead? I understand we are being outspent. Hell I get outspent everyday. The money I sent to Obama to help get him elected was more than I could afford. I thought it was worth it. I hear that a lot has changed and we should be grateful for that. But what I see most is everyone still has a hand out for the money that I’d like to be earning. I’d like to think that being a leader doesn’t cost money. I’d like to think that I don’t have to feel like I’m being blackmailed for the air I breathe, the water I drink, for the ability to keep doing those things when I’m ill. But maybe I’m just a dreamer, maybe I have to become more cynical and take what I perceive to be mine, and if I take some or all of yours as well so be it. Oh wait that would make me an asshole. Or republican. Or maybe just any politician
AngusTheGodOfMeat
@arguingwithsignposts:
Man, no. The political history of the US since 1932 has been the history of progressive policy. They are not winning.
Look what happened when GWB tried to stick a knife into the chest of Social Security a few years ago. His approval rating started to decline, his own party started ignoring him, his attempt was epic fail, and by the time Katrina happened, his administration was a lame duck.
Our opponents make a lot of noise, but they are not winning.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
@Ruckus:
That’s a fine rant, and all, but the money donated to Obama CANNOT be used to fund pro-healthcare messages. That was then, this is now.
Don’t you suppose that the Scrooge McDuck HMOs are calculating that they can outspend the opposition precisely because we gave till it hurt to get Obama elected?
So, prove them wrong. You don’t get a pony for the Obama donation, you bought a chance to be right where you are now. The job isn’t finished.
Jim
@Notorious P.A.T.:
.
I don’t know if he’s glad of it, but I really wonder if he, or any other Beltway Dem, is making the connection between that race and HRC.
Little Dreamer
@arguingwithsignposts:
GFY, leave me out of it, I wouldn’t touch you with my great grandmother’s twat.
arguingwithsignposts
@AngusTheGodOfMeat:
First, you convinced me to chip in $25.
I know you’re happy. :)
(Let it never be said that my mind couldn’t be changed)
OTOH, this:
They may not be winning, but they’re sure killing a lot of people losing (two wars, Katrina, health insurance, economy, bank bailouts, AIG, etc.).
ETA:
ellaesther
@cleek: I’m finally back, but only to say: But that is insane!
Perhaps this is why I feel like I don’t understand — because it’s just crazy! I mean, honestly, how can that even fucking be? Surely there must be options (“nuclear” or not) beyond allowing a handful of disgruntled and power-hungry assholes to side-track the very notion of “majority rules”!
So, the follow up question is: Why can no one figure out a way around this?
SiubhanDuinne
I posted this, O/T, in the two next threads, but it actually seems to belong here:
Breaking News:
Ruckus
@AngusTheGodOfMeat:
Thanks for the applause. Pause for bow.
I get that we are where we are. I get there are no ponies. I wasn’t paying for a pony anyway.
But if you’ll notice the reply that auguing posted at #62, Mitch thanked him for his donation for HCR.
So please enlighten me. Where is my money going if I donate to Obama? And if it isn’t going for HCR why am I donating to him at all? I get the rest of the progressive orgs asking me to help with ads against the assholes. I got what my money was before the election.
What is the money for now?
Obama doesn’t vote on legislation, he shouldn’t have to write any of it and it doesn’t appear that he is. He has a press office, he has spokespeople, he can summon people to his office to discuss probably any issue.
Is he taking out ads?
Is he supporting progressive candidates?
Once again the question, what is the money for?
Zifnab
@Balconesfault:
Honestly, I wouldn’t have minded if the Senate Dems had just let the Republicans blow their load early on. First threat of filibuster, let them go whole hog. Get those bastards up there on soap boxes, pop some popcorn, and rally the troops for a stirring rendition of “Telephone Book Theater”. Then when the Republicans ran themselves to exhaustion, let them consider whether they wanted to do it again.
But that was in the middle of an economic collapse when the stimulus genuinely needed passing. And now we’re edging towards campaign season. And, at the end of the day, there’s really no good time for over half the Senate body tied up in their seats.
On the flip side, you may notice Reid keeping the Senate at work through multiple weekends. At the very least, the Dems aren’t afraid of grinding the opposition down by keeping them at the wheel. I honestly suspect a traditional filibuster would be a relief compared to committee hearings and voice votes and general Senate business. This time three years ago, if Congress was in session for more than three days straight, it was considered a real hustle. Now weekends are a thing of the past.
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
@Ruckus:
@AngusTheGodOfMeat, with respect, you’ve got it slightly off.
Organizing For America is built and more or less controlled by Obama, but isn’t a PAC or any of that business. They can, and have, spent money directly on Health Care Reform. An example is this article, on a contest they sponsored for a ad supporting National Health Care.
But more to the point, they spend a lot of money putting boots on the ground. They’re the crew that got 300K people to call Congress in one day, in support of health care. They’re putting people on the ground to talk to people about this — which is, as I observed first-hand, a huge part of how he got elected to begin with.
A goodly number of my old crew from the Obama campaign in NC are working today to get health care going, based out of the OFA. I know they contacted us specifically to help work Health Care, but I’ve moved and am swamped with other work.
So I don’t know what you want. The info’s on their web site.
Ruckus
@Woodrow “asim” Jarvis Hill:
Thanks. I actually knew the answer already I just wanted to make a point. I could have done it factually like you did or with a rant, like I did. This week I have been in rant mode, and as it is mostly for health and money reasons, ranting is about all I can do now.
My point is – I feel like it doesn’t matter. No matter who is in office it seems like the those of us below the 50th percentile in income, position, status, whatever, can only give, never share. We serve overwhelmingly in the military, we get shit upon by banks, employment, schools, taxes, congress and my shoulders are tired from the load, my nose is ground down from the grindstone.
I know that the assholes want it this way and your point that fighting the good fight and keeping on keeping on is the only thing left, but it just seems like it doesn’t make any difference.
Please convince me that I’m full of shit and that change is possible.
AdamK
…big, bewhiskered, overbearing…
arguingwithsignposts
@Ruckus:
nice rant. I feel that way a lot too, although I may be slightly above the 50th percentile. I don’t feel that well off. And I think you make a good point that living is hard enough for a lot of people, then expecting them to keep having to hold congress’ feet to the fire is expecting a lot. It’s a representative democracy for a reason. We don’t all have time for that stuff, which is why we expect the reps. to do their work while we do ours.
Ruckus
@arguingwithsignposts:
I think you get the point. If you are above the 50% and don’t feel well off, imagine the lady in Seattle who got audited by the IRS for making less than $19,000. She’s not supposed to be able to live there for that with kids and all. She doesn’t own a car, a house, and was told that she must have a second income because otherwise she couldn’t afford to live there. So what’s her choice? Move to a really crappy area? Kill herself? Become a hooker on the side? Live under a bridge? This is not the conservatives or the corporations telling her this. It is her representative government. It no longer represents those of us below the 50th or 60th percentile, even if we are trying not be there. It would be in the governments best interest to have us move up the scale. Hell it would be in the conservatives best interest. It’s always in our best interest that as many people as possible move up, and as long as we help those who haven’t or can not things actually do get better. This crap has been going on for my entire life and I’m just tired of pitching in. For nothing. Actually for less than nothing.
You know at some point this rant will have to end.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
@arguingwithsignposts:
Hey, good move.
I am mooless. I have never convinced anyone of anything before.
When are you in Phoenix? Alfalfa is on me.
arguingwithsignposts
@AngusTheGodOfMeat:
I’ll actually be in AZ in january. I’ll be sure to take you up on the alfalfa.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
@arguingwithsignposts:
A repost since my last one blew up (the site seems to be a little delicate right now):
Sounds good, let us know when. Are you flying, or driving?
arguingwithsignposts
@AngusTheGodOfMeat:
Actually, check that, will be early feb. will be flying. And I’ll be in Phoenix, at UA.
These are the kinds of times when we need those BJ t-shirts. :)
Chuck Butcher
I’d like to point out something to the urbanites on this site, the US House is population based in representation. If the Senate also were such a body, the rural areas of the country would consistently live with what benefits the urban areas, that would be the rule. My state has 4/5ths of the population on 1/3rd of the geography and that 2/3rds of geography lives with what is good for actually about 1/10th of the geography, and frequently gets seriously screwed by what that 1/10th thinks is good because the State Senate is not actually a counterbalance, and our intiative system discounts population distribution entirely. A particularly stupid California-istic property tax intitiative failed in virtually every rural county, 1/10th of the geography passed it and its results have been pretty catastrophic for most of the State, included the dumbasses who passed it.
I don’t in the least like what is going on in the Senate, but the bottom line is that the Democratic Caucus has methodology to force the recalcitrant members to not filibuster without real serious consequences. You eat because rural areas exist, you have wood for houses, you have metals, you get a shitload out of the existance of the rural population and sometimes you get better policy because of them. Cut their throats even more at serious risk to your own well being. That is the exact reason the Senate has 2 representatives per state regardless of its population. Some of your populous states would be sink holes of poverty without that, there were 13 States then – remember?