Senate likely has 60 votes for motion to proceed on health care bill

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 14:45


It now seems quite likely that the Senate has the 60 votes necessary to force cloture on the motion to proceed with the health care bill.  The final three votes Senate majority leader Harry Reid needed were Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Mary Landrieu, but all three now appear to be ready to vote "aye."  Here is a rundown of all three:

  1. Ben Nelson has stated that he will vote for cloture:

    "This weekend, I will vote for the motion to proceed to bring that debate onto the Senate floor," Nelson says. "The Senate should start trying to fix a health care system that costs too much and delivers too little for Nebraskans."

    Nelson indicates that this does not mean he is ready to support cloture to pass the bill, but he is willing to let debate go forward.

  2. Earlier today, Senate #2 Dick Durbin stated that Blanche Lincoln has told Harry Reid she would vote yes.  Durbin is now walking back that statement, but really, the gig is up for Lincoln.

    Anyway, what was Lincoln going to do--oppose even letting the debate go forward and then ask Democrats to vote for her in 2010?  Not bloody likely, especially with a prominent figure in Arkansas still considering a primary challenge.  Lincoln is highly likely to be a yes.

  3. The last remaining holdout, Mary Landrieu, appears to have secured $100 million in Medicare funding for Louisiana in exchange for her vote.

    Right-wingers are in an uproar over this, but really--I am shocked, shocked to find that there is gambling going on in this casino!  A member of Congress holding out on a key vote in order to secure funding for her home state or district!?  I bet that has never happened before.  This is really breaking new ground on Capitol Hill!

    Further, while they don't seem to realize it, the right-wing uproar over Landrieu's deal actually makes it virtually impossible for her to vote against cloture now.  Due to right-wing publicity, now everyone knows Landrieu is bringing $100 million home by holding out.  As such, what is Landrieu going to do--issue a statement that preventing a floor debate on health care is more important than $100 million for Louisiana?  Only 9% of Louisianans think she should block the debate.  I bet a lot more than that want the $100 million, especially now that everyone has heard about the $100 million.

So, it looks like Democrats have the 60 needed to move forward on debate.  The truth is that Reid probably secured the 60 votes before filing the cloture motion.  It is a rare day when the leadership doesn't know the outcome of a vote before scheduling it.

The vote will take place tomorrow night, at 8 p.m. eastern, following an all-day debate.  Notably, in exchange for the all-day debate, Senator Coburn has dropped his demand that the entire bill be read out loud, which means there will be less droning on C-SPAN2 during Monday and Tuesday of next week.
Chris Bowers :: Senate likely has 60 votes for motion to proceed on health care bill

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Senate likely has 60 votes for motion to proceed on health care bill | 18 comments
Senator Reid and the Power of Persuasion (0.00 / 0)
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nyt...

saw this on the times, don't know how accurate it is...

also (0.00 / 0)
Commentary: What LBJ would do

http://us.cnn.com/2009/POLITIC...

[ Parent ]
As Usual (2.67 / 3)
If we want a Democrat vote, just buy it.

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.
[ Parent ]
What about Lieberman? (0.00 / 0)
Unless I missed it I have not seen anything the past few days indicating how he plans to vote for cloture.
The Big Tent (0.00 / 0)

damn sham and counting (4.00 / 2)
The vote will take place tomorrow night, at 8 p.m. eastern, following an all-day debate.

Great. If it finally makes it to Obama's desk and is signed into law we can start the countdown.

1,300+ days before it takes effect...and counting.

By then we will have long forgotten it is a pale immitation of what the Democrats promised us on the campaign trail.

Oh, and it is also 1,300+ days for the reationaries to make all the necessary "amendments" to bring things back to more or less exactly the way they are now.

Of course that also gives the left 1,300+ days to elect a Congress and a president who will scuttle the goddamn sham and replace it with, say, real healthcare reform?  

More importantly (4.00 / 1)
it rescues us from the strategic error of focusing on health care and not jobs.

People with good jobs can buy their own health insurance.

[ Parent ]
implying wages are commensurate with the cost of health insurance (4.00 / 4)
oh you
[ Parent ]
I imply no such thing (0.00 / 0)
What part of "good" don't you understand? esp. as it applies to jobs?

The money spent on a battery of social programs can be bundled up and called a job in exchange for the person's labor.

Government jobs, make-work jobs, welfare jobs, etc., have been a hallmark of the US safety net for 8 decades. Now more than ever we need frank socialism, and, as ALWAYS the best social program is a good job.

Oh, by the way, let's catalog the bad ideas that have been hawked by supposed friends of the little guy, "Progressives":

1. The Progressive Caucus blocking a health care bill without a Single Payer, or a "strong public option" (it has neither)

2. Liberals blocking a bill over the difference between Hyde and Stupak (there is no meaningful difference)

3, The general idea of the shrinking the Big Tent, i.e. ankle-biting Ben Nelson et al. when they take a seat that would be held, not by a Republican moderate, but a kook.

4. The need to form third parties or countenance "Staying home" in 2010: no, GOTV should be an existential project.

In the end, we will all be better off because these creatures of the echo-chamber were strangled in the crib, and cooler, more calculating, and Machiavellian heads prevailed.

Group think will get you nowhere, to say nothing of Progressives, America, and the world. But you don't care, it feels too good.

Someone like myself, who does not float in "Progressive" social circles, rather I am surrounded primarily by apolitical types, "moderates", and hard core right wingers and practically no left wingers at all (the US military); has a valuable perspective:

The GOP went from riches to rags when they lost Middle America: without some kind of tether, Progressives and others going by that moniker will find themselves on the other side of Middle America and be crushed.

Wiemar was as arrogant as it was transient.

[ Parent ]
Wat (2.00 / 2)
Well, I could criticize this post for misrepresenting Progressives, or misunderstanding what TravisDisaster was trying to say, but what I really want to focus on is how this is weirdly incoherent in the same way that the writings of schizophrenics is.

The MORE or less random underlining, bolding, AND italicizing, the bizarre and abrupt change of topic in paragraph 4, the disproportionate lashing out at compatriots, and the inexplicable (and misspelled) reference to Weimar Germany all work to create a style that Francis E. Dec would find familiar.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, calm down.

[ Parent ]
"The GOP went from riches to rags when they lost Middle America" (0.00 / 0)
When did this happen?  Last I checked there was still a big ugly blob of red in the center of this country.  And not the good red, either.

Also point 3 is astoundingly incoherent.

[ Parent ]
Social Security was passed in 1935 (4.00 / 1)
it took effect in 1942...kept that in mind.  
[ Parent ]
That is incorrect... (0.00 / 0)
...the Act was signed in the latter half of 1935 and first payments were made in 1937.  Some delusional conservatives blame the 1937-38 economic downturn on Social Security being implemented in 1937.

Regards,

[ Parent ]
Now that Landrieu is in the room (4.00 / 4)
Progressives should vow to block that $100 million from being added to any other bill if health care reform doesn't pass, so that the only way she gets the money is if this bill passes.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
New Orleans (4.00 / 1)
Is going to get much-deserved aid b/c of HCR; didn't Joseph Cao make it all bi-partisan-y in the House once Obama pledged aid?
No (0.00 / 0)
He voted for the bill because of the Stupak amendment.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Obama also promised subsidies to New Orleans (0.00 / 0)
to secure his vote.  
[ Parent ]
If this was real Health Reform... (0.00 / 0)
...I would be 100% for it.  It is not therefore I am against it.  I consider this just another big health care industry win.  Another battle lost by the American people.  There is a devastating review of it in this month's Harper's Magazine and Robert Reich takes it a part as well here:  http://robertreich.blogspot.co...  I could go on but I am sick about it, everyone should do what they can to defeat this so-called "reform".

Regards,

Senate likely has 60 votes for motion to proceed on health care bill | 18 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox