One Eye on Policy, One Eye on Cloture

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Every time a center-right member of the Senate Democratic caucus says something discouraging about health care reform, there's always a key caveat: their votes on cloture matter more than their votes on the bill. Just so long as these "Conservadems" oppose a Republican filibuster that would block consideration of the bill, they can vote however they please on the legislation itself. With that in mind, there's pretty intense interest in how these members plan to proceed on cloture. For example, it flew under the radar this week, but Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.) told Ryan Grim the other day, "I'm not right now inclined to support any filibuster." Noting the GOP's obstructionists tactics, Landrieu added, "For the Republican Party to kind of step out of the game is very unfortunate. I'm not going to be joining people that don't want progress."

What's more, last week, Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) said, "I don't think you'll see me or any other Democrats" support a filibuster. (via Aaron Wiener)

Yesterday, Arlen Specter offered a surprisingly encouraging assessment.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) on Thursday said that Democrats have 60 votes for cloture on a healthcare bill with a national public health insurance option. [...]

"We have 60 votes without Sen. [Olympia] Snowe [R-Maine] to invoke cloture," Specter told MSNBC [last night]. "I hope we have her but we may be able to do it without her."

Specter said the senators on the fence about the public option may vote for cloture to bring the bill to a floor vote, then vote against the legislation.

"Very frequently a senator will vote for cloture but against the bill," he said.

If that's true, it's obviously a major breakthrough. If there are already 60 votes for cloture, the likelihood of a strong bill becoming law is very strong. The problem, though, is that Specter seems to be the only person who's convinced that those votes are definitely there. I hope he's right, but I'll temper my enthusiasm until I hear others -- say, someone in the leadership, for example -- make the same assessment.

All things being equal, though, this is the right push -- just get the center-right Dems to commit to an up-or-down vote. That's all. They don't have to like the bill; they don't even have to vote for the bill; they can even vote for an amendment to remove the public option from the bill; they just have to let the bill come to the floor for a vote.

Get 60 senators to agree, and everything will work out fine.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[almaty 19]

interesting ...Senator Specter statement

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Is there any precedent of a Senator actually voting with the opposing caucus to prevent cloture on legislation overall favored by his/her cacus?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Is there any precedent of a Senator actually voting with the opposing caucus to prevent cloture on legislation overall favored by his/her cacus?

Good question. I'm thinking that this is an example of the benefits of having a two-party system....because in the end, the Democrats are still Democrats. They would essentially sabotaging their base by supporting a filibuster which would be political suicide. I could understand it happening over a controversial bill but not on a bill that is in step with the agenda of the newly elected leader of their party.

[Pooky 3,930]

Is there any precedent of a Senator actually voting with the opposing caucus to prevent cloture on legislation overall favored by his/her cacus?

Good question. I'm thinking that this is an example of the benefits of having a two-party system....because in the end, the Democrats are still Democrats. They would essentially sabotaging their base by supporting a filibuster which would be political suicide. I could understand it happening over a controversial bill but not on a bill that is in step with the agenda of the newly elected leader of their party.

If you don't this this is a controversial bill, I'd like to see what you would consider controversial.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Is there any precedent of a Senator actually voting with the opposing caucus to prevent cloture on legislation overall favored by his/her cacus?

Good question. I'm thinking that this is an example of the benefits of having a two-party system....because in the end, the Democrats are still Democrats. They would essentially sabotaging their base by supporting a filibuster which would be political suicide. I could understand it happening over a controversial bill but not on a bill that is in step with the agenda of the newly elected leader of their party.

If you don't this this is a controversial bill, I'd like to see what you would consider controversial.

There's nothing controversial about a President delivering on his campaign promise, in spite of the opposition...he won on the promise of health care reform and idea of public insurance as an option. Feel free to go back and look at what he said as well as the polls.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Is there any precedent of a Senator actually voting with the opposing caucus to prevent cloture on legislation overall favored by his/her cacus?

Good question. I'm thinking that this is an example of the benefits of having a two-party system....because in the end, the Democrats are still Democrats. They would essentially sabotaging their base by supporting a filibuster which would be political suicide. I could understand it happening over a controversial bill but not on a bill that is in step with the agenda of the newly elected leader of their party.

If you don't this this is a controversial bill, I'd like to see what you would consider controversial.

The only controversy is over details not the reform effort itself. The agreement that the health care system is in desperate need for reform reaches far beyond the Democratic party. There's no controversy on that point. Only where certain special interests are hurt and where one of the parties sees an opportunity to score political points by being obstructionist (not that there really is an opportunity in it but they seem to see it anyway) is where the controversy comes in.

[Pooky 3,930]

Is there any precedent of a Senator actually voting with the opposing caucus to prevent cloture on legislation overall favored by his/her cacus?

Good question. I'm thinking that this is an example of the benefits of having a two-party system....because in the end, the Democrats are still Democrats. They would essentially sabotaging their base by supporting a filibuster which would be political suicide. I could understand it happening over a controversial bill but not on a bill that is in step with the agenda of the newly elected leader of their party.

If you don't this this is a controversial bill, I'd like to see what you would consider controversial.

The only controversy is over details not the reform effort itself. The agreement that the health care system is in desperate need for reform reaches far beyond the Democratic party. There's no controversy on that point. Only where certain special interests are hurt and where one of the parties sees an opportunity to score political points by being obstructionist (not that there really is an opportunity in it but they seem to see it anyway) is where the controversy comes in.

Then why is there concern over whether enough Democrats will vote to pass the Bill?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Is there any precedent of a Senator actually voting with the opposing caucus to prevent cloture on legislation overall favored by his/her cacus?

Good question. I'm thinking that this is an example of the benefits of having a two-party system....because in the end, the Democrats are still Democrats. They would essentially sabotaging their base by supporting a filibuster which would be political suicide. I could understand it happening over a controversial bill but not on a bill that is in step with the agenda of the newly elected leader of their party.

If you don't this this is a controversial bill, I'd like to see what you would consider controversial.

The only controversy is over details not the reform effort itself. The agreement that the health care system is in desperate need for reform reaches far beyond the Democratic party. There's no controversy on that point. Only where certain special interests are hurt and where one of the parties sees an opportunity to score political points by being obstructionist (not that there really is an opportunity in it but they seem to see it anyway) is where the controversy comes in.

Then why is there concern over whether enough Democrats will vote to pass the Bill?

Did you read what I wrote? There's no doubt that a bill will pass. None whatsoever. The question is whether it will be a meaningful bill or whether it's going to be so watered down by Congresspeople yielding to special interests that it won't amount t much at all. At issue at this point are the details not whether a reform bill will pass.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Is there any precedent of a Senator actually voting with the opposing caucus to prevent cloture on legislation overall favored by his/her cacus?

Good question. I'm thinking that this is an example of the benefits of having a two-party system....because in the end, the Democrats are still Democrats. They would essentially sabotaging their base by supporting a filibuster which would be political suicide. I could understand it happening over a controversial bill but not on a bill that is in step with the agenda of the newly elected leader of their party.

If you don't this this is a controversial bill, I'd like to see what you would consider controversial.

The only controversy is over details not the reform effort itself. The agreement that the health care system is in desperate need for reform reaches far beyond the Democratic party. There's no controversy on that point. Only where certain special interests are hurt and where one of the parties sees an opportunity to score political points by being obstructionist (not that there really is an opportunity in it but they seem to see it anyway) is where the controversy comes in.

Then why is there concern over whether enough Democrats will vote to pass the Bill?

That's hardly a litmus test on controversy. This is a difficult bill to get through Congress for many reasons - strong opposition from the Private Insurance Industry and it's heavy influence in Washington to name one. If this passes, which I'm hopeful it will - it will be a landmark bill since health care has been tackled so many times before and failed. Never underestimate the power of lobbyists in Washington.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[Pooky 3,930]

Is there any precedent of a Senator actually voting with the opposing caucus to prevent cloture on legislation overall favored by his/her cacus?

Good question. I'm thinking that this is an example of the benefits of having a two-party system....because in the end, the Democrats are still Democrats. They would essentially sabotaging their base by supporting a filibuster which would be political suicide. I could understand it happening over a controversial bill but not on a bill that is in step with the agenda of the newly elected leader of their party.

If you don't this this is a controversial bill, I'd like to see what you would consider controversial.

The only controversy is over details not the reform effort itself. The agreement that the health care system is in desperate need for reform reaches far beyond the Democratic party. There's no controversy on that point. Only where certain special interests are hurt and where one of the parties sees an opportunity to score political points by being obstructionist (not that there really is an opportunity in it but they seem to see it anyway) is where the controversy comes in.

Then why is there concern over whether enough Democrats will vote to pass the Bill?

Did you read what I wrote? There's no doubt that a bill will pass. None whatsoever. The question is whether it will be a meaningful bill or whether it's going to be so watered down by Congresspeople yielding to special interests that it won't amount t much at all. At issue at this point are the details not whether a reform bill will pass.

Sorry, but it's you who doesn't understand.

The Bill that passes will be anything but meaningful. That chance was passed up the moment this administration started listening to the insurance lobby and started compromising. That killed any meaningful measure stone dead. The President had the mandate to make the kind of lasting reform this country needs, by taking basic healthcare out of the insurance industry's hands, for a short time after he was elected. His chance came and went. The combination of vested interests, Congressional ambition, lobbyists and time have combined to make any Bill that passes into a pale shadow of the measure that should be under consideration.

And that's a shame.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Is there any precedent of a Senator actually voting with the opposing caucus to prevent cloture on legislation overall favored by his/her cacus?

Good question. I'm thinking that this is an example of the benefits of having a two-party system....because in the end, the Democrats are still Democrats. They would essentially sabotaging their base by supporting a filibuster which would be political suicide. I could understand it happening over a controversial bill but not on a bill that is in step with the agenda of the newly elected leader of their party.

If you don't this this is a controversial bill, I'd like to see what you would consider controversial.

The only controversy is over details not the reform effort itself. The agreement that the health care system is in desperate need for reform reaches far beyond the Democratic party. There's no controversy on that point. Only where certain special interests are hurt and where one of the parties sees an opportunity to score political points by being obstructionist (not that there really is an opportunity in it but they seem to see it anyway) is where the controversy comes in.

Then why is there concern over whether enough Democrats will vote to pass the Bill?

Did you read what I wrote? There's no doubt that a bill will pass. None whatsoever. The question is whether it will be a meaningful bill or whether it's going to be so watered down by Congresspeople yielding to special interests that it won't amount t much at all. At issue at this point are the details not whether a reform bill will pass.

Sorry, but it's you who doesn't understand.

The Bill that passes will be anything but meaningful. That chance was passed up the moment this administration started listening to the insurance lobby and started compromising. That killed any meaningful measure stone dead. The President had the mandate to make the kind of lasting reform this country needs, by taking basic healthcare out of the insurance industry's hands, for a short time after he was elected. His chance came and went. The combination of vested interests, Congressional ambition, lobbyists and time have combined to make any Bill that passes into a pale shadow of the measure that should be under consideration.

And that's a shame.

You must not be following the debate on the issue. We went from health care reform is dead to health care reform won't have a public option to wihch public option will health care reform have? See a trend there, bud?

[Pooky 3,930]

Is there any precedent of a Senator actually voting with the opposing caucus to prevent cloture on legislation overall favored by his/her cacus?

Good question. I'm thinking that this is an example of the benefits of having a two-party system....because in the end, the Democrats are still Democrats. They would essentially sabotaging their base by supporting a filibuster which would be political suicide. I could understand it happening over a controversial bill but not on a bill that is in step with the agenda of the newly elected leader of their party.

If you don't this this is a controversial bill, I'd like to see what you would consider controversial.

The only controversy is over details not the reform effort itself. The agreement that the health care system is in desperate need for reform reaches far beyond the Democratic party. There's no controversy on that point. Only where certain special interests are hurt and where one of the parties sees an opportunity to score political points by being obstructionist (not that there really is an opportunity in it but they seem to see it anyway) is where the controversy comes in.

Then why is there concern over whether enough Democrats will vote to pass the Bill?

Did you read what I wrote? There's no doubt that a bill will pass. None whatsoever. The question is whether it will be a meaningful bill or whether it's going to be so watered down by Congresspeople yielding to special interests that it won't amount t much at all. At issue at this point are the details not whether a reform bill will pass.

Sorry, but it's you who doesn't understand.

The Bill that passes will be anything but meaningful. That chance was passed up the moment this administration started listening to the insurance lobby and started compromising. That killed any meaningful measure stone dead. The President had the mandate to make the kind of lasting reform this country needs, by taking basic healthcare out of the insurance industry's hands, for a short time after he was elected. His chance came and went. The combination of vested interests, Congressional ambition, lobbyists and time have combined to make any Bill that passes into a pale shadow of the measure that should be under consideration.

And that's a shame.

You must not be following the debate on the issue. We went from health care reform is dead to health care reform won't have a public option to wihch public option will health care reform have? See a trend there, bud?

The trend I see is that you're happy to be sold short on healthcare by this government. It's your funeral. But hey, you're happy.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Is there any precedent of a Senator actually voting with the opposing caucus to prevent cloture on legislation overall favored by his/her cacus?

Good question. I'm thinking that this is an example of the benefits of having a two-party system....because in the end, the Democrats are still Democrats. They would essentially sabotaging their base by supporting a filibuster which would be political suicide. I could understand it happening over a controversial bill but not on a bill that is in step with the agenda of the newly elected leader of their party.

If you don't this this is a controversial bill, I'd like to see what you would consider controversial.

The only controversy is over details not the reform effort itself. The agreement that the health care system is in desperate need for reform reaches far beyond the Democratic party. There's no controversy on that point. Only where certain special interests are hurt and where one of the parties sees an opportunity to score political points by being obstructionist (not that there really is an opportunity in it but they seem to see it anyway) is where the controversy comes in.

Then why is there concern over whether enough Democrats will vote to pass the Bill?

Did you read what I wrote? There's no doubt that a bill will pass. None whatsoever. The question is whether it will be a meaningful bill or whether it's going to be so watered down by Congresspeople yielding to special interests that it won't amount t much at all. At issue at this point are the details not whether a reform bill will pass.

Sorry, but it's you who doesn't understand.

The Bill that passes will be anything but meaningful. That chance was passed up the moment this administration started listening to the insurance lobby and started compromising. That killed any meaningful measure stone dead. The President had the mandate to make the kind of lasting reform this country needs, by taking basic healthcare out of the insurance industry's hands, for a short time after he was elected. His chance came and went. The combination of vested interests, Congressional ambition, lobbyists and time have combined to make any Bill that passes into a pale shadow of the measure that should be under consideration.

And that's a shame.

You must not be following the debate on the issue. We went from health care reform is dead to health care reform won't have a public option to wihch public option will health care reform have? See a trend there, bud?

The trend I see is that you're happy to be sold short on healthcare by this government. It's your funeral. But hey, you're happy.

I'm not happy at all. I always was in favor of a single payer system. Cut the pimps out altogether. They do not add any value, they just take their cut off the top. And while you can't blame a pimp for doing what a pimp does, we should have a reform package that essentially helps the pimps to the door. But Americans have these huge ideological blinders thinking that government can't do anything right in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary (Medicare). So, that puts single payer out of the race. And shite gets watered down from there. If you think I'm happy with what is currently on the table, you're mistaken. But if we can at least introduce an additional choice into the mix and put the pips somewhat in check, I think that would be a big step forward. Not nearly as big as what is needed but at least there's a move after decades of doing nothing and letting this ridiculous excuse for a health care system grow like a cancer.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Is there any precedent of a Senator actually voting with the opposing caucus to prevent cloture on legislation overall favored by his/her cacus?

Good question. I'm thinking that this is an example of the benefits of having a two-party system....because in the end, the Democrats are still Democrats. They would essentially sabotaging their base by supporting a filibuster which would be political suicide. I could understand it happening over a controversial bill but not on a bill that is in step with the agenda of the newly elected leader of their party.

If you don't this this is a controversial bill, I'd like to see what you would consider controversial.

The only controversy is over details not the reform effort itself. The agreement that the health care system is in desperate need for reform reaches far beyond the Democratic party. There's no controversy on that point. Only where certain special interests are hurt and where one of the parties sees an opportunity to score political points by being obstructionist (not that there really is an opportunity in it but they seem to see it anyway) is where the controversy comes in.

Then why is there concern over whether enough Democrats will vote to pass the Bill?

Did you read what I wrote? There's no doubt that a bill will pass. None whatsoever. The question is whether it will be a meaningful bill or whether it's going to be so watered down by Congresspeople yielding to special interests that it won't amount t much at all. At issue at this point are the details not whether a reform bill will pass.

Sorry, but it's you who doesn't understand.

The Bill that passes will be anything but meaningful. That chance was passed up the moment this administration started listening to the insurance lobby and started compromising. That killed any meaningful measure stone dead. The President had the mandate to make the kind of lasting reform this country needs, by taking basic healthcare out of the insurance industry's hands, for a short time after he was elected. His chance came and went. The combination of vested interests, Congressional ambition, lobbyists and time have combined to make any Bill that passes into a pale shadow of the measure that should be under consideration.

And that's a shame.

You must not be following the debate on the issue. We went from health care reform is dead to health care reform won't have a public option to wihch public option will health care reform have? See a trend there, bud?

The trend I see is that you're happy to be sold short on healthcare by this government. It's your funeral. But hey, you're happy.

I'm not happy at all. I always was in favor of a single payer system. Cut the pimps out altogether. They do not add any value, they just take their cut off the top. And while you can't blame a pimp for doing what a pimp does, we should have a reform package that essentially helps the pimps to the door. But Americans have these huge ideological blinders thinking that government can't do anything right in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary (Medicare). So, that puts single payer out of the race. And shite gets watered down from there. If you think I'm happy with what is currently on the table, you're mistaken. But if we can at least introduce an additional choice into the mix and put the pips somewhat in check, I think that would be a big step forward. Not nearly as big as what is needed but at least there's a move after decades of doing nothing and letting this ridiculous excuse for a health care system grow like a cancer.

word