And then there were 57 (assuming Lieberman and Nelson are still playing games):
Speaking with Neil Cavuto on the Fox Business Channel tonight, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) stated flatly that he would not vote for the health care bill moving through the Senate.
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. And here is the reason. When the public option was withdrawn, because of Lieberman’s action, what I worry about is how do you control escalating health care costs?
Crucially, Sanders said he’s not voting “for the bill.” That is not necessarily a vote against cloture. There’s an opportunity for him to vote for cloture and against the bill and still be technically correct about his intentions. For conservative Democrats, procedural votes and up or down votes on the bill became one and the same, leading to the hostage-taking process. Perhaps Sanders is still trying to extract more goodies from the bill, maybe even in the area of community health centers.
And so it will go with climate change, financial regulations, etc.
Might as well call Dick Morris up and start talking about school uniforms. Who gets to play Lewinsky this time? I hope it is someone better looking. I’m pulling for Beyonce or Zoe Seldana.
Seebach
I guess this is what Obama gets for thinking the number one problem in America is the tone in Washington.
jeffreyw
Leave Monica aloooone!
cleek
we are a deeply stupid people
Jay B.
There’s enough wiggle room in Sanders’ statement to have a new dance move named after it. I know you haven’t been a Democrat long, but for some of us, it’s actually nice when someone tries to showboat on our behalf now and again.
Just Some Fuckhead
Good on Bernie. You’ll start to see two camps forming. Those that believe government is capable of solving problems for the greater good and those that cynically think it’s all about who is up and who is down.
max hats
Un-fucking-believable. I’m at a loss.
Mr Furious
I think he votes for cloture and against the final bill. At that point hopefully it won’t matter.
Tx Expat
You know, I realized when voting for Obama that he wasn’t the second coming of progressive Jebus, but I did think that he was smart enough to at least have SURVIVAL INSTINCTS.
For the love of Allah, dude, get a grip on that bully pulpit and start promoting the hell out of your agenda. Think “fire-side chat”….
As for the Monica part, put me down for Beyonce. That girl is hot and I wouldn’t have to have disturbing images in my head of the president “not getting a blow-job” from a look-a-like of his mother. Shudder…
Leelee for Obama
I suppose another chorus of “Green Balloons” is useless, eh? C’mon, Cole, I came back here for another up note. Maybe a cute puppy or a sneering cat? Throw me a frikkin’ bone here, wouldja?
dadanarchist
C’mon – Sanders will vote for cloture. He has criticized the constant cloture votes before and I cannot see him voting with the GOP to filibuster this bill. He may vote against the final version, but I don’t see him sustaining a Rethug fili.
Anyway, I’ll take Sanders’ acumen and judgment over almost anybody else in Congress, any day.
Mnemosyne
Frankly, as long as Sanders votes for cloture, he’s more than free to vote against the bill itself as far as I’m concerned. At least we’ll have an actual up-and-down vote and not any more of this idiotic supermajority bullshit. If it goes up for a vote and the progressive Senators are pissed off enough that it fails 51-49, so be it.
It’s the people who keep claiming that their consciences won’t even let the fucking thing come to a vote who are pissing me off.
Kryptik
You promised, you bastard!
FlipYrWhig
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Which is which? Is the “greater good” camp the “save the bill” people or the “kill the bill” people? Are the cynics the ones who want to pass anything or the ones who want to posture to project strength? It cuts both ways. I don’t even know anymore.
matt
I thought you said no more depressing posts!
General Winfield Stuck
And that’s not even considering the very liberal house members who threaten to scuttle any bill without a PO, though they may have swallowed a medicare by in.
Dems in the senate, the 52 liberals who want a PO, are going to have to take charge of this shit, and get downright nasty and bulldoze the stinkholes now in the limelight. I think it will be the only way to get a decent bill with a PO that will HAVE to be done by reconciliation. To get the House to go along too. But they have to pass Aunt Harriets Chocolate Cake Recipe out of the senate first.
Brain hurts. Have to step away.
b-psycho
They can practice on me if they’d like.
Derek
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/16/815402/-20-answers?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+dailykos/index+(Daily+Kos)
arguingwithsignposts
@Leelee for Obama:
I just wrote a mental health break, because I agree with the green balloon juice safe word idea.
P.S. – I think Bernie Sanders has more integrity in the fingernail of his pinky than Lieberman, Baucus, Nelson, or the entire GOP Senatorial caucus has in their entire bodies, but I’ve had enough for today.
ETA: I wonder how this whole thing would have been handled in the world of non-24/7 news/internet? Would the blackmailers like Lieberman have had as much of a voice? That’s something to think about. Sometimes, the connected world is a good thing, sometimes, it’s maddening.
dadanarchist
Here’s a question: can anyone tell me/link me to why the bill hasn’t been split, so that the reforms that require a 60 vote undemocratic majority can be passed by normal senate rules, while new programs that don’t require cloture (public option, medicare buy-in) can be passed via reconciliation?
Other than that it will make David Broder poop his depends?
Nellcote
When did the teabaggers get renamed as “code red”?
mcc
Okay, so wait, look at this. Do you see what Sanders did there?
He didn’t say “kill the bill”. He didn’t say “public option or nothing”.
He said, “you need to do something if you want to get my vote”.
Do you see that? That’s what’s called pressuring. He judged, “this bill is not good enough”, and then took a stand demanding it get better. He didn’t make up an arbitrary litmus test and demand that the positions of the other 59 people necessary to pass the bill be disregarded in favor of his. He didn’t 180 his position on the larger bill just because of inadequate parts. He didn’t make impossible or illegal demands. He simply said he demanded negotiation while showing good-faith flexibility on what form that negotiation should take. Most of all, he made it clear that his goal is ultimately to pass a bill, and his goal is to improve the bill, not to stop it.
And you know what? The most likely result of this that Bernie Sanders will get at least something he wants– some sort of tradeoff in the amendment which ultimately strips the public option– whereas the bloggers yelling “kill the bill” and demanding things that have already been demonstrated impossible will get nothing they want.
Bernie, are you making requests? I think reverting the regulations on rescission and annual caps to the stronger language in the house/HELP/finance bills would be a good place to start.
rikyrah
he can vote against the bill; just vote for cloture.
mcc
@dadanarchist: Well– it seems to me that if we were going to follow that path– which I think it’s a great idea and we really should– it would not be a good idea to broadcast it until after the base bill has been passed. Considering Lieberman has already in the last two weeks 180ed on something, by his own admission, because he was afraid Anthony Wiener might like it too much.
I think once the bill passes every democrat should be demanding like crazy that medicare buy-in or the public option get passed via reconciliation on the very next budget bill, but there’s not really any benefit I can see to anyone in Congress pushing that possibility right now.
Little Dreamer
@FlipYrWhig:
I don’t think anyone knows anymore. Maybe we should just call it a game, take the ball, go home and write off humanity? I think we’re done here.
Seebach
@Little Dreamer: Not humanity. Most other civilized countries seem capable of doing this.
Little Dreamer
@Seebach:
You know, you make a good point, perhaps America isn’t the best choice to advance it’s ideas around the world. There I said it, the internet police searching for anti-American sentiment can roast me now.
Elisabeth
@Mnemosyne:
He’s one of my Senator’s and I wrote to him this afternoon to tell him to vote as he saw fit. If there’s enough good stuff in there go for it. If there isn’t vote against it. I’ll support him either way. He’s about the only one I trust to do the right thing on this. He ain’t looking for perfect; he’s looking for enough to do some real good.
I have no doubt that he’ll vote for cloture.
dadanarchist
Maybe you’re right, maybe it’s all part of that Eleventy Billion dimensional chess we hear so much about.
However, I also doubt senators want to pass a major entitlement expansion through reconciliation. Since they live and die by what Joe Klein and David Broder think of them, I can’t see them going that route, no matter how sensible.
CalD
I didn’t hear Sanders say he’d support a filibuster. It only takes 51 to pass the damned bill.
jimBOB
It’s not going to be possible to address national political issues (health care, climate, the finance sector etc.) if there’s a 60-vote supermajority requirement in the Senate. All the big problems with this bill are a direct result of trying to get votes 51 through 60. And now, thanks to all the stuff that’s been carved out, they’re starting to lose votes 1 through 50.
As I’ve been saying for some time, HCR has to either go through reconciliation or it dies. And if we want to address any of the other urgent business of the nation, we’ll need to do it without the filibuster in place, or we’ll be too paralyzed to get anything passed.
I do think the health care finance system is too far gone for the issue to lie fallow for 20 years if we fail now. If we try to leave it that long I think we’d start seeing armed rebellion.
woody
arguingwithsignposts, the one thing that the 24-hour news-cycle guarantees is the pre-eminence of the Big Lie, which relies for its efficacy on repetition from “reputable” sources of lies too big to fail. The Big Lie was alleged to have been invented by Hitler, in Mein Kampf, but it was originally devised as a strategy by Edouard Bernays, the so-called “father” of public relations.
C Nelson Reilly
@jimBOB:
I welcome Armageddon at this point. I’m looking at a 5% chance of Rapture. I’m putting it all on red.
mcc
@dadanarchist: Well, I’m not suggesting this is something the Congressional Democrats specifically intend to do and just aren’t talking about it. I’m suggesting this is something the grassroots should demand, and something that unlike “kill the bill” (you know, the thing that one week ago we were demanding Nelson be thrown out of the party for trying to do) is actually in the realm of possibility and a reasonable demand. But I think it’s certain no one of importance will even consider the possibility until after the bill passes.
woody
If Obamanable Sno-Job doesn’t have a bill to sign by the SOTU, he will have been effetively rendered a lame-duck in the first week of his second year of his only term. That may be a record…
Little Dreamer
@woody:
Please put that thing away and don’t play with it around here.
Little Dreamer
@C Nelson Reilly:
I think that was supposed to be directed towards me.
Newsflash: God isn’t directing the Rapture elevator, it’s going DOWN, not up!
bayville
Chapter 1,290 in the Death of the American Empire:
A leftwing Senator scorned by modern liberals for vowing to vote against a bill that would undoubtedly do financial harm to most working and middle class Americans while corps. reel in mucho profits.
And not to mention the fact that all of a sudden “57” votes isn’t (nearly) enough votes to pass a bill in The Senate.
I guess I picked the wrong generation to major in Government Studies.
slag
FUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCKKKKKK!
That is all.
TooManyJens
Sure, except for the part where he didn’t say that at all. He said “as of now” he’s not voting for it. The bill ain’t finished yet. He also said nothing about filibustering.
Rick Taylor
__
The number 60 is only relevant if he’s voting against cloture. If he is, then I agree with you. But otherwise I think he’s doing what progressives in the senate need to do if they’re going to attempt to improve the bill in conference (or even just avoid making it worse); say it’s unsatisfactory in its current forum, and begin a debate on how to improve it. If they take the position they will support any bill, even if conservative Democrats argue in bad faith, they may as well just give have Lieberman to dictate the bill to save time. This is negotiation, it’s not a circular firing squad, at least not yet.
I agree with you about Dean; arguing we need to scrap the bill and start from scratch is foolish. But this is different.
mclaren
Why isn’t anyone talking about the very realistic prospect that this bill will go to reconciliation? We only need 51 votes for reconciliation. Holy Joe and President Snowe and the rest of those clowns can hang once the bill gets into reconciliation.
NobodySpecial
@mclaren:
Because, again, reconciliation will not bring you a better bill. In every single case of reconciliation, the Senate wins. Which means instead of having bad things taken out, you will have good things taken out.
Thess
(Apologies up front for long-windedness.) I find myself having to de-lurk because I’m simply baffled by the majority opinion here. I’ve read many posts, but I’m still confused. My view:
Worst Case: Shitty bill passes. A million people are helped by the shitty bill for the year or six we have until the next Republican majority, who will easily club the unpopular Frankenstein monster to death in its crib. 349 million people are screwed for decades, with the other 1 mil following shortly behind, as health care is pulled off the table for the near term following the big failure of Ought-Nine. And all anyone will remember for the next decade is “the Dems passed their vision of a health care bill and I STILL don’t have health care/am getting reamed by my insurer.” They’ll KNOW the Dems can’t provide the free health care they desperately want, and instead they’ll hope and pray that the Republicans can, no matter how unrealistic that hope is. President Palin results.
So-So Case: Bill sinks under fire from all sides, but with the Dem leadership publicly clinging to the sinking ship, as they are now. Dems get to say (for the third cycle running) “we have a really great health care bill we want, but we need more Senators to get it”. Might work again. It might not, because enough people might remember the leadership clinging to a stinky bill (i.e. a bill that does nothing to help them personally) and thrashing around in a failed effort. No Americans in need helped in short term, but path still open for a big win in the near future, esp. if Dem leadership capable of learning from the failure. No President Palin, but maybe some lost seats or even a lost majority. Health care remains on the political landscape, so good Dems can still score points off it, and future elections can still be won on the promise. Plus. . . we still might actually fucking GET IT some day.
Best (realistic) Case: Bill dies quick death, enabling Dems to immediately reload for another shot. Dem leadership + significant numbers of Dem Reps and Sens push hard for a bill the public is excited about, and that can be easily sold as being a benefit to everyone (ideally “health care for all”, but “public option” and “Medicare for all” would likely work). The public wants health care, and they want a bill that’s easily understood. Let’s see if Holy Joe still wants to be Mr. Obstruction when 70% of his district is drooling for a great, simple, universal plan (instead of that enthusiasm being both divided and watered down by an indecipherable compromise bill- folks will understand “health care for all”). Gives every Dem everywhere a massively popular rallying point in next cycle. Obama 2nd term + seat gains + ever-increasing pressure from voters to pass the damn thing. Those one million helped by the shitty bill have to wait a couple years (or not, given its gi-normous incubation time), but then 350 million people get helped, not just one. And remember- a shitty bill is killable by future Republican majorities, but as we saw with Medicare reform a GOOD health care bill is immortal. So if a winning game plan exists for Dems on health care, this is surely it.
This is one political area where the path to victory is all-or-nothing, not compromise. Because of that, a lot of anti-shitty-billers are getting unfairly tarred as being universally anti-compromise. Not at all. But “compromise” is not magically always the right course of action. There are plenty of times for it. This is not one of them.
My bottom line is that nearly everyone really, REALLY wants a good backbacon, bangers or brie-scented health care system, whether they know it now or not. If the Dems give it to them, or plausibly promise it to them, the Dems will continue to win. If what the public gets ain’t that, they’re voting for the other guys. In the next couple elections, no significant votes will be cast in favor of Republican ideology. Votes will be cast for or against Dems based on Democratic victories to that date. Ergo, a vote for a shitty bill is a vote for President Palin.
Maybe my head’s screwed on backwards or sumpthin’, but I just can’t see it any other way. Apologies again for my filibuster.