The Decisions That Must Be Made

by: Mike Lux

Mon Dec 14, 2009 at 11:45


The health care debate has officially arrived at its most critical juncture. Joe Lieberman’s “I will never compromise in any way whatsoever that could hurt Aetna” tantrum, which proves definitively once and for all that he needs to be stripped of his committee chairmanship and targeted for defeat by Democrats in 2012, has brought progressive groups, activists, and members of congress to the brink of a decision we fervently hoped we could avoid making. Absent some miracle of policy creativity or leg breaking persuasion, progressives are going to have to make a choice: do we give in on the public option but then use our leverage to demand the most progressive possible legislation on everything else in this bill, or do we say no to the whole bill, forcing Democrats to start over or give up entirely on passing the health bill? (Reconciliation in my mind is a form of starting over given how complicated it is procedurally, and given that the bill would probably have to broken up into at least two different pieces of legislation to pass it.)

First though, other than thoroughly denouncing Lieberman for the arrogant, insurance flack that he is, I think progressives should hold our powder and wait to see the next maneuver by Reid and the other Democrats. There is still a chance that a creative new approach on the policy side, combined with extreme pressure on Lieberman from the political side, might resolve this situation in some manner progressives could possibly live with. I think we should save our flamethrowers and grenades for a day or two to see what happens next, because I know Reid and others inside are continuing to work this thing internally. And with the news this weekend catching everyone by surprise (Lieberman had actually signed off on the compromise before he decided to oppose it), I honestly don’t think we have enough information to make a decision yet anyway. Given that we literally don’t know what bill Reid is intending to introduce yet, it’s hard to know whether to oppose it or support it.

So I’m holding my powder for the moment. Reid came through on putting the public option in the original merged bill, and he came through in delivering 60 votes for the motion to proceed with debate, so I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for a while longer. But I go back to what I have written before, and what those of us at Openleft have demanded in our petition to Reid: one way or another, you have to deliver. Get it done, whatever it takes, Senator: breaking Lieberman’s legs (metaphorically, at least), reconciliation, the nuclear option, they all work for me. Whatever it takes. In terms of that ultimate decision I discussed at the beginning, while I’m not ready to make that decision, I know what my inclination is: stand up to Lieberman. One man’s tantrum should not determine the fate of the entire Democratic party’s policy decisions. While I have been more understanding than many progressives of why Reid doesn’t want to go the reconciliation route, for example, I think we should be ready to do it if that is what it comes down to. It would be problematic on many different levels, but whatever we have to do to get a good bill should be done. Whatever it takes.

Mike Lux :: The Decisions That Must Be Made

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Decisions That Must Be Made | 108 comments
"wait to see the next maneuver by Reid and the other Democrats"? (4.00 / 1)
Only if there is hug pressure on them to guarantee that this maneuver gos into the right direction! And that is, imho, kicking Lieberman out of the caucus and stripping him of his chairmanship! Reid has to show he means business now, or else progressives should simply sidepass him and built up a case for getting rid of th filibuster. That move would require a bold rebel willing to raise the issue, Joe Biden as the master of ceremony, and 49 Senators afraid of being publicly exploited as undemocratic powermongers who don't care about the constitutional majority rule at all.

So, sure, give Reid a very last chance, but make it crystal clear to him this is the very last straw, and a damn short one. And if he doesn't deliver, everybody up to the breach and lets storm the damn bastille!

bowers was much more to the pont (4.00 / 4)
What we need to start doing is taking action against the Democrats who enable Lieberman and his ilk.  If other Senate Democrats are not going to do anything about Lieberman taking control of the entire caucus, then really, what is the difference between those other Senators and Joe Lieberman?

Of course, it's not clear what "taking action" means, but I gather he would want to go beyond a sternly worded memo.

Such is progress among progressives.

So, Lux, what couldn't you live with?  And if you couldn't, what would you do about it?

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

What does that mean (0.00 / 0)
in practical terms?  Is every member of the Caucus who opposes having Lieberman lose his chair now to be considered an enemy?

[ Parent ]
This is hyperbole (4.00 / 1)
"Is every member of the Caucus who opposes having Lieberman lose his chair now to be considered an enemy?"
[ Parent ]
It means ending the filibuster. (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Not An Enemy (4.00 / 2)
But I do think that liberals should make support in future elections conditional on vowing to eliminate the filibuster. They can either have us working for them and donating to their campaigns or they can have their precious filibuster, but not both. If this issue doesn't make it clear, nothing will.
[ Parent ]
They get enough action (0.00 / 0)
from the corporations.  2008 was an outlier.  Just think if all that Obama effort had been put into a non-establishment candidate... sigh.
[ Parent ]
yes (4.00 / 3)


Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
[ Parent ]
Maybe not an enemy, but certainly an obstacle! (4.00 / 1)
Come on, what else shall we think of those fools who hold the Joerrribles back?
[ Parent ]
I don't have a vote. (0.00 / 0)
I ain't a Senator, so there are limits to what I can do about it. I can and will take a position publicly when I see a bill, I can and will talk to House members and other activists about strategies to pursue depending on what happens in the Senate, but I don't have a vote.
I have spelled out in past posts what I could and couldn't live with, but I also know that this is a big complicated bill, with lots of different features good and bad. You have to look at the entire thing, whenever it does come out and decide whether you can live with it or not.  
[ Parent ]
Question is what will you do about those who DO have a vote (4.00 / 1)
Obviously our good Democratic senators and congressmen have anticipated that our progressive leaders will make angry statements when they finally serve us this bloody stump of health care reform.  And they have certainly concluded that they can "live with it."

Your statements are already scripted into the kabuki dance.  The question is how we can break out of the script.  The Full Court Press is one tactic to do so with the House.  Maybe we need one for the Senate as well.

It doesn't solve all our problems, and I never claimed it would, mere kick in their shins, but please, I am only Jeff the Small and Meek.  You on the other hand are Great and Powerful.  Relatively speaking.  Surely you could come out from behind the curtain with even more effective ACTION than my little proposal, something that might kick them a little higher up.

Must we really search the Mike Lux archives to glean what you couldn't live with?


Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
The criticism of Reid (4.00 / 2)
assumes that he has 50 votes for passage on reconciliation.

Virtually any analysis you can attempt of HCR depends on whether he has those votes.  My guess is that he doesn't, but who knows.

If progressives kill hcr they are declaring war on the President.  They won't be the first (after all, Lieberman declared War on Obama a year ago) and you can argue that Obama first declared war on Progressives first, but in practical political terms I don't think it matters.

If Progressives are blamed for taking Obama down there will be absolute hell to pay. Obama remains popular among rank and file Democrats, and there will be an enourmous sense of betrayal among his supporters.  There will be irony in this (after all it has been the conservadems that are the real source of the problem).  It will be unfair.  But that doesn't mean it won't happen.

Right now I think Progressives are on the verge through some of their actions of marginalizing themselves.  

As I have written here before I don't agree with Obama on any number of issues.  How to translate that into something that actually effects substantive policy, as opposed to something that in the end amounts to a loud rant, remains a question to which I personally have no answer.

fladem, how do you think voters will feel (4.00 / 6)
about health care reform passing that doesn't solve any problems and doesn't stop their premiums from going through the roof? And continues to let insurance companies force cancer patients into bankruptcy and discriminate for pre-existing conditions at least until 2014?

Health care reform that's no improvement on the status quo is nothing to celebrate.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
Let's separate the (4.00 / 1)
political and the substance here for a second.

On substance: my guess is that the bill will more than halve those without insurance.  But let us say you are also right: it also means increasing premiums.  Whether it means premiums would rise faster than they are currently may be questionable, but let's assume you are right.

On substance the question is whether a significant reduction in the uninsured is worth the increase in premiums.

On politics: stopping this bill will have a significant impact on the perception of Obama's competence.  It will also create the overall perception that Democrats can't do anything right.  My guess it will also destroy the relationship between the White House and Progressives on the Hill.

You can argue, though, that if you kill it now it will be forgotten by next November and the election will decided on the economy anyway. In any case given the probable losses in 2010 it is doubtful we would see HCR before 2013.  Accomplishing something close to acceptable in this case would probably require beating Obama in 2012.


[ Parent ]
Politics (4.00 / 1)

On politics: stopping this bill will have a significant impact on the perception of Obama's competence.

How far should the left stretch to cover for the incompetence of this administration?

The political question is: if the bill is a naked giveaway to the health insurance industry, with mandates basically a form of taxation outsourced to private corporations with no public oversight or redress, what would the political ramifications of that be?

[ Parent ]
The czar is our friend (4.00 / 8)
The truth is kept from him by evil ministers.  Once he sees that we are starving and tattered, then he will help us.

And then the machine guns opened fire.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
and presumably Reid didn't have 50 votes (4.00 / 2)
for reconciliation before, but perhaps that is changing now that everyone can see Lieberman and Nelson have no interest in a decent bill passing. They are arguably in a strong er position if no bill passes.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
[ Parent ]
Actually the more important question is (0.00 / 0)
if he does not even have the votes for reconciliation, how will he supposedly have the votes for anything approaching 60?
[ Parent ]
Contra fladem, I don't think Reid should have much (4.00 / 1)
problem getting the votes for a reconciliation done this way.
[ Parent ]
I don't know (0.00 / 0)
within the caucus how much anger there is with Lieberman and Nelson.  

As I wrote, it is virtually impossible to figure out Reid's position without knowing if he has the votes.  I do think, thought, you are right in this respect, and it is the real crux of the issue:

Politically there is less risk in stopping HCR for the convervadems in the Senate than there is for the Progressives.

And that is precisely the problem.

[ Parent ]
Which votes would he lose going to reconciliation? (0.00 / 0)
Byrd possibly, because it would go against the intent of the Byrd rule.  Feingold is the sort to make a similar stand on principle.

Are there Democrats who will bail because reconciliation will take out things like restrictions on recission practices?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
It hardly matters- it is the fear the possibility that counts (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Reconcile a Medicare expansion (4.00 / 3)
or a substantive public option. Either is entirely appropriate for the Byrd rule. Then put the regulatory reforms into a separate bill and dare the "centrists" to oppose a bill with everything they wanted.

Really, it's not that complicated to split.

[ Parent ]
Some quick math (4.00 / 1)
my guess he immediately loses Bayh, Nelson (Neb), Lieberman, Lincoln and Landreiu.  He would also lose Byrd as you note.  

That give him 54.  My guess is he would also lose Nelson (Fl) so he has a margin is down to 3.  So he needs to carry 94% of the remaining Democrats to get 50 (which plus Biden gives him enough).

I have no idea if he has the votes or not.

[ Parent ]
There are others who oppose the use of reconciliation (0.00 / 0)
Baucus and Conrad are on the record as opposing it, although that may have been intended as tough talk to protect their committees' turf.

As has been noted, Harkin and Feingold oppose the use of reconciliation.  Casey strikes me as the kind of guy who would buy into Feingold's moral and process-oriented reasoning.

If reconciliation requires an up-and-down vote on whether to use it, I'd probably bet against it.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
no, Mike, it is hopeless (4.00 / 6)
There will not be 60 votes in the Senate for any bill that would do anything good.

It's reconciliation or work to kill this bill. The insurance industry would love to have it pass without any public option or Medicare buy-in.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

desmoinesdem is correct. (4.00 / 2)
there is NO way out.

None.

If we do not get rid of the filibuster, we have essentially lost democracy.

We must end the filibuster.

I am going away from the keyboard now, I have made my point long enough, and will just continue to say it....

We must end the filibuster, it is not the intention opf th3e founders to make bills need 60 votes top pass, no one in America ever demanded it, it a simple procedural rule, it can be eliminated by a vote of 51 Senators, it is not democratic.

End the filibuster, all other actions are tricks to keep democratic control, of the nation from its people.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
End the filabuster? Noooooooooo!!!!!!!!! (4.00 / 1)
Remember we just ended 6 years of Republican Rule.  I know that the Democratic Senators are cowards but do you really want to give the Republicans the opportunity to do whatever they wished with a simple majority in the Senate.  If so you should say by-by to Medicare, Medicade and Social Security next time they control all 3 houses and that could be as early as 2012.
[ Parent ]
I really like democracy. I dont like managed democracy. (4.00 / 1)
And they will never control all three if we pass good legislation, and can pass legislation, damn good legislation if we didnt have to make it ugly with corrupt compromises demanded by the filibuster.

It is a crime against democracy.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
So are the Electoral College and the Two Party System (4.00 / 1)
It is a crime against democracy.

But can we really wait around until all of those are taken care of before we make new and better policy?

I'm with you on reconsidering the filibuster rules, but the current issue on the fron burner is HCR, so your continual desire to deflect attention from that issue to the filibuster seems counter productive and not at all in line with your usual comments that "progressives" must remain focused on this issue because it is so important.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
NO, the current issue on the table is the destruction of HealthCare Reform, by undemocratic rules in the senate. (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
No reconciliation, no health care reform (4.00 / 1)
We either eliminate or circumvent the filibuster, or no substantive health care reform is going to pass.  
[ Parent ]
Exaclty. (4.00 / 1)
With a real elected government, as if we were a democracy, we would have an excellent Health Reform Bill, one that needed 51 votes to pass, and it would be loved by the American people.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
Enough is enough (4.00 / 1)
do you really want to give the Republicans the opportunity to do whatever they wished with a simple majority in the Senate.

Yes.  That is how democracy works.  The U.S. system even without the filibuster makes change of any sort ludicrously difficult.  The filibuster makes any real progressive change close to impossible.  And it's wrong -- wildly undemocratic.

If the Republicans really end Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, there will be hell to pay, and we can reinstate them along with a lot more.  If not, the country is dead anyway.  Defending the filibuster is just asking for a slower, more painful death.

[ Parent ]
Uh, it's not the R party that wants the catfood commission nt (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Are you kidding? (4.00 / 5)
Mike:

Isn't it clear that the vast majority of changes that have been made to "Health Care Reform" have been bad.  The game has been and continues to be to strip out the good parts and leave the stuff that helps Insurance Companies. While you are waiting to see what happens the gutting continues.  

We need to say no - if there is no real public option or at the very, very least a real ability for folks to do Medicare buy-in then we need to say no.  If there are any forms of lifetime caps we need to say no.  If the insurance isn't actually open to all at realistic prices we need to say no.  If Insurance companies can continue to dump folks when they get sick we need to say no. If the bill further restricts women's rights to abortions we need to say no.

Its really that simple.  If certain things aren't there we just need to say no.

changes (0.00 / 0)
Not all of the changes have been bad. The bill got better from the Finance committee to the floor in Reid's original merged proposal, and the compromise done the other day had some very good things in it, liking forcing insurers to pay out 90% of their revenue in benefits.
[ Parent ]
That's right. But that's two steps back, and only one ahead. (4.00 / 1)
The balance still isn't very positive, imho.
[ Parent ]
What are you talking about? (0.00 / 0)
Mike:

I'm not talking about every little dot and twiddle I'm talking about the mass flow of things and its down.  With a few exceptions the House bill is better than the Senate and now the Senate bill gets worse daily.

The problem is that the job of the progressive press is now changing - now, to keep the Democratic power structure and White House happy they need to sell this bag of feces to the progressive community and it ain't going over well.

As they say - lots of luck on that one -

[ Parent ]
Have to Follow Through On A Threat (4.00 / 7)
I don't see why this is a difficult decision. Liberals said they wanted a public option or no bill. If there's no public option - or something reasonably equivalent to one - then we shouldn't support it. Otherwise we're just as big a saps as the Republicans think we are. If Obama doesn't like it that's just tough.  
There is only one way to go. Toward democracy. Our democracy has been stolen, it must be returned. (4.00 / 2)
Toward democracy means ending the filibuster, or returning it to its purpose which was (WAS, not what it is now) which was a way to slow down legislation so it could be considered more, it was supposed to add a few days to consideration. Now it is used like a Bank vault, like a sledgehammer, like a gun at a knife fight.

   The term filibuster was first used in 1851. It was derived from the Spanish filibustero meaning pirate or freebooter. This term had evolved from the French word flibustier, which itself evolved from the Dutch vrijbuiter (freebooter). This term was applied at the time to American adventurers, mostly from Southern states, who sought to overthrow the governments of Central American states, and was transferred to the users of the filibuster, seen as a tactic for pirating or hijacking debate.[1]

END THE FILIBUSTER NOW, RETURN DEMOCRACY TO AMERICA.

It was created with a 50% +1 rule change, it can be removed with a 50% +1 rule change

END THE FILIBUSTER NOW, RETURN DEMOCRACY TO AMERICA.

Chris is right. There is no difference between any democrat that allows Lieberman to stop this and Lieberman. If you support keeping the filibuster the way it is, you are a Republican, you are a member of the party of no.

End the filibuster now.

The filibuster is the Democratic Caucus's fault. The BLame, ALL the blame, every square inch of the fault is in the Democratic party Caucus who have abdicated responsibility to govern. They could at thye drop of a hat retake the right to govern, but they do not.

They are cowards, and do not deserve the name Democrat.

It is the responsibility of the entire Democratic Party Senate Caucus THEY are to blame. They are the ones who return democtacy to the United States, they are the ones preventing it, they are the ones responsible.

It "might" help if Obama asked them, or told, or screamed at them, or threatened them. Might.

But it is, IS, the sole responsibility of the Democratic Party Senate Caucus to remove the filibuster as a way to PREVENT legislation.

Period.

If this was a murder trial you could not indict Obama for murder, it is The Democratic Party Senate Caucus who is killing Health Reform. Obama is barley an accessory.

It is The Democratic Party Senate Caucus who is killing Health Reform.

It is Fiengold's fault. It is Reid's fault, it is Schumers fault. It is Rockefellers fault. It is Boxers fault. It is Testers fault.



Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

Agree / Disagree (4.00 / 1)
While I agree this mess is the Dems fault, Obama's at the head of my list, I totally disagree about the filibuster - the Repubs would destroy everything next time they are in power - which could be very soon.
[ Parent ]
But they will anyway (4.00 / 3)
If you think the Republicans would hesitate for a millisecond to abolish the filibuster if they needed to in order to accomplish their aims, you need to pay closer attention. Remember, they're even crazier now than they were under Bush.
[ Parent ]
EXACTLY! (4.00 / 1)
If it is dangerous now to change the filibuster, it will dangerous IF they ever return to power.

Passing good legislation means they never return to power. Thgis bullshit making good legislation into bad because of the filibuster is what makes the people hate Congress.

Good legislation will mean democratic power forever.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
BS (4.00 / 1)
Passing good legislation means they never return to power.

So you prefer a one party state?  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
??? what the hell? (4.00 / 1)
Do I want the democrats to keep the republican party out of office for ever?
Yes. Do i want more primarying of bad dems? yes.

Is this a joke?

Do you have any idea what a one party state is? Its where the other party is NOT ALLOWED to run.

I am talking, obviously, about Americans seeing that good government is a choice, and voting for people who [prove that government can be a positive force for ever. Choice.

Is this sarcasm ... ?

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
One Party Rule is to be avoided (4.00 / 1)
Check your rhetoric

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Uh, check the logic, Spitty. (0.00 / 0)
All that HoP is saying is that he's for a two party system where one party (hint: the more left wing one) successfully prevents the other one from getting into Power again. This may be an illusion, but it's certainly not stomping for a one party system! So, what was your point again?
[ Parent ]
Do you vote Republican ? ever? (0.00 / 0)
Do you voite republican do remove a good elected official who has been in office "too long?" Would you vote for a Republican to remove Sanders from office? Even if he had been in office for thirty years?

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
No (4.00 / 1)
I let my fellow citizens take care of that. To get my personal vote, Democrats have to move left and have a sense of humor. I see no reason to believe that single party dominance by the Democratic Party would move the nation to the left. It MIGHT prevent more military adventurism like we saw with Bush/Cheney, but it might not. So I'm non-plussed by the "Dems".

I tend to vote for write-in candidates, except for critical races. I practically never vote for an incumbent unless they have been particularly good by my standards. Al Franken, for example, will continue to get my vote in 2014. I cut Reps some slack because 2 years is a very short time. My pet electoral peeve is unopposed candidates, especially for judgeships. I ALWAYS vote "ART TEMPLE" in those cases. In 2008, I voted "ART TEMPLE" 38 times on a single ballot.

In general, the political system is either too broken or too well gamed by people with better connections than I, to really work in the way I was taught.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Why bother at all? (0.00 / 0)
If it's all just a joke, isn't the punchline becoming a bit boring after all those years?
|-(
[ Parent ]
I am sorry, I have been discussing with you as if you were serious about saving peoples lives and saving Democracy. (0.00 / 1)
I didnt realize you were so self absorbed. Please ignore my posts spitball

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
This is an outrageous, unjustified personal attack (0.00 / 0)
There is nothing to suggest spitball is self-absorbed or unserious.  He may have a different outlook than you, maybe no more than a different style.  I would troll-rate except I know you to be a dedicated, normally reasonable progressive.
[ Parent ]
I'm asking for to be banned (0.00 / 0)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Realignment (4.00 / 1)
This is off the point, since House isn't calling for a one-party system, but what actually happens when one party becomes dominant is that the other party moves in its direction and eventually wins again.  This is what happened with the GOP after the New Deal, and what many of us were (are) hoping would happen again now.  So it's entirely possible that the "Republican Party," with its current ideology would never win again, but a new, less reactionary one would.
[ Parent ]
Alternately (0.00 / 0)
Let the D party do the work formerly ascribed to the R party (i.e., stop pretending that the published platforms mean anything).  Then a REAL realignment might happen and we might just grow a left-wing party again.
[ Parent ]
At some point (4.00 / 2)
you simply have to accept that there are consequences to winning or losing elections.

I am not willing to accept the idea that we cannot get rid of the filibuster because we might lose a future election, and as a result bad things may happen.

The filibuster is anti-democratic and was used for years to deny the civil rights of millions.

It should have been killed as part of the resolution that organized the Senate in January.

[ Parent ]
That consequence does not and must not include further eroding democracy. (0.00 / 0)
Regardless of what you choose to accept, the reality is that had the Republicans succeeded in their efforts to remove the filibuster (even though the Dems almost never use it anymore) we would all be so much worse off.  It was wrong then and it's wrong now.  Replacing bad Dems with ones we can count on to fight for our interests is out topmost priority right now, since it's obvious there aren't enough good ones to make a dent.
[ Parent ]
Pipe Dream (4.00 / 1)
I don't accept your argument about the worth of the filibuster, but beyond that you have to recognize that because the Senate is gerrymandered towards rural areas there's a permanent conservative bias to it. It's virtually impossible to get 60 votes for progressive legislation. In fact I don't know if we've ever had 60 votes for progressive legislation, with the sole exception of Civil Rights.
[ Parent ]
The Great Society (0.00 / 0)
as a whole including Medicare and Medicaid occured in one Congress where we had the votes.

[ Parent ]
Also during the New Deal era (0.00 / 0)
But these were the rare exceptions.  And the filibuster wasn't used regularly in those days.  Probably Social Security would have gotten 60 votes anyway, but it did much better on final passage than it did on procedural votes (there was no filibuster).  Its wealthy/business opponents didn't hold opponents to vote "no" on final passage, since it was popular and was going to pass anyway.  Don't know enough about the history, but who knows what effect a filibuster would have had?  Similarly, today, health care would pass easily without a filibuster, with the votes of most of the conservadems, certainly Lincoln and Landrieu to name two.
[ Parent ]
Sounds like the real reason you want the filibuster eliminated is... (0.00 / 0)
The problem with eliminating the filibuster is that it erodes the very minority protection dedelste was referring to.

I go with the usual definition that democracy is rule by the majority with protection for the rights of the minority.

That's exactly what the filibuster was created to do, protect the rights of the minority.  There doesn't seem to be any regard for what this will mean when the Dems manage to blow it again and lose control of the Senate.  It also ignores the fact that by resorting to this instead of forcing party discipline in the Democratic Caucus it'll be taking the lazy way out -- with disastrous consequences down the road.

[ Parent ]
I can't help but get the feeling that you hate the filibuster. (0.00 / 0)
Enough already.  We get it.  You don't like democracy.  You want the GOP, when it returns to majority status in the Senate, to be able to ram anything it wants down our throats with a simple 51-vote majority.  You've posted this how many times now in how many threads?

Look, just because you think it's inconvenient to getting a worthless piece of legislation passed doesn't mean the filibuster is without merit.  Nor does it follow that Democrats will retain the majority.  You've made your point already.  There's no need to spam the thread with endless bleating about eliminating the filibuster.  I think everyone knows by now what you want.

[ Parent ]
If you think the filibuster is necessary to democracy . . . (4.00 / 1)
You and I are on a different planet.
[ Parent ]
I know. I'm on Planet Earth. (0.00 / 0)
Which one are you on?
[ Parent ]
My comment wasn't meant as snark (0.00 / 0)
But sorry, I should have made an argument.  I go with the usual definition that democracy is rule by the majority with protection for the rights of the minority.  The U.S. system, even without the filibuster, leans more towards minority rights than that of any other industrialized democracy, as was intended by the Founders.  The filibuster throws out the balance completely, making it virtually impossible for majorities to get anything substantial done.  See Daniel DeGroot's excellent posts here from this past weekend for a better argument than I could ever make.

The chances of ever getting 60 Senators that meet even a weak definition of "progressive" is very low, partly because of the rural bias arbitrista talks about, partly because of the way voting behavior works generally.  Ironically, our best chance in the foreseeable future would be to pass the kind of good progressive legislation now that the filibuster is making impossible.  People support parties and politicians that make their lives better.  This is exactly what happened during the New Deal era.

[ Parent ]
It looked like it to me. (0.00 / 0)
Sorry if I was harsher than I meant to be, but I'm suffering something of a family crisis right now and your remark came across as being very hostile and unproductive.  The fact is that the filibuster was put in place to safeguard against tyranny of the majority party -- to prevent just the sort of thing the GOP wanted to do when that party was gunning for the power to ram legislation through.  It just looks to me like this push to end the filibuster is a shortsighted, lazy way out of making the Democratic leadership exercise some party discipline.
[ Parent ]
All the best wishes, LiA! (4.00 / 1)
A horrible time to be faced with family problems (not that there ever is a good time for this). Sometimes it's really "when it rains it pours". Here's hoping everything will turn out well for you!
[ Parent ]
No problem (4.00 / 1)
We disagree on the filibuster, but you make intelligent, well-reasoned arguments and I was being lazy and thoughtless.

All the best to you and your family.

[ Parent ]
It's all over but the blaming. (4.00 / 6)
DeLong, Yglesias, and Josh Micah Marshall all have trial balloons up blaming getting ready to progressives for the defeat of Healthcare and absolving Obama, even though at this point Snowe, Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln, and Landrieu are opposed to almost every proposal that's on the table.  But they aren't doing it, we are.

Gingrich picked some fights he knew he couldn't win, stayed on the attack, demonized the opponents, and came back to win in a later year. But when Obama loses, the Republicans and the traitor Democrats will be off scot free, and Jane Hamsher will be the villain.

Obama's can't really do anything else, because he's really closer to the five traitors than he is to the average Democratic voter. People talk about the discouraged Democrats as though they were elite, effete snobs, but they include a good chunk of the Democratic rank and file and a lot of the people who worked for Obama.

Somehow Olympia Snowe's opinion counts, and Democratic volunteers opinions don't count. You really can't get anywhere if you systematically betray your own supporters.


The difference (0.00 / 0)
was that Gingrich was only effective as a minority leader.  In 1995 his decision to confront Clinton was a complete disaster.  

I don't agree about Obama's popularity among Democrats in the rank in file being in trouble.  

You are dead right, though, that liberals are being set up as the fall guys.  

[ Parent ]
Gingrich, DeLay, Rove, and Bush transformed America (4.00 / 1)
They won, we lost, and Democrats today are hamstrung by the structural changes the Republicans brought -- low taxes, fiscal uncertainty, and the state of permanent war Obama just endorsed.
[ Parent ]
How did Gingrich's confrontation lead to disaster? (0.00 / 0)
As I remember it, they scored a lot of wins, and ended up putting Clinton on the defensive at every turn.  And the Republicans were not the minority in the House from 1995 to 2007; they were the majority.
[ Parent ]
I agree with much of this post but . . . (0.00 / 0)
I really think you're stretching it if you think Josh Marshall is setting up to blame progressives, though.  There's one reader email he posted that could be interpreted as doing this (largely wrongly I'd say), but if you read the sum of his posts the last two days, they're all over Lieberman and the Conservadems.
[ Parent ]
Like clockwork (0.00 / 0)
I said last night that this would be the response.  
Hamsher/Hadassah (0.00 / 0)
I can't imagine that Hamsher's campaign to oust Hadassah from the Cure helped...it appeared last week out of nowhere right when this deal was going down. As vengeful and vindictive as Lieberman is known to be this probably was the last straw and contributed to his double cross of Reid...btw the campaign has been extended:

http://firedoglake.com/2009/12...

come on (4.00 / 3)
You think Lieberman would have gone along with a Medicare buy-in if Jane Hamsher hadn't been mean to Hadassah?

Look at Lieberman's whole record of involvement on this issue.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
I Am Aware of All Internet Traditions (4.00 / 5)
and I propose, 'this is all Jane's fault' as a new one.
[ Parent ]
He is unhinged. (0.00 / 0)
I think a personal campaign against his wife by pro-Lamont forces could easily have set this man into a rage. He is unhinged.  
[ Parent ]
What are Lieberman's kids up to? (0.00 / 0)
I think Jane Hamsher should go after them next.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
I (0.00 / 0)
agree.
[ Parent ]
I think anyone beliving this is the reason for this (4.00 / 4)
behavior by Lieberman is searching for a reason to rationalize the situation. it is what it is.  
[ Parent ]
I don't believe in trying to convert Perfidious Joe (0.00 / 0)
I just approve of purely retributive measures aimed at Lieberman's family.

I'd be tempted to advocate giving Hamas missiles out of spite for Lieberman.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
I think conflicts of interest are a real issue (0.00 / 0)
And I do believe in personal retribution where it can help. But, that's me. I am "old style Democratic, crack some heads" that way.  
[ Parent ]
Not funny (0.00 / 0)
I'd be tempted to advocate giving Hamas missiles out of spite for Lieberman.

I may be an Edelstein, but I'm not (thank God) in Lieberman's family.  Nor are most Israeli Jews.

Peace.

[ Parent ]
HoJo's little revenge fantasy ... (4.00 / 3)
started in 2004 .. when primary voters rejected his bid to be the Democratic nominee for President ... he mistakenly believed Democrats chose a nominee the same way Republicans do
[ Parent ]
There is another option (4.00 / 1)
Accept the crumbs AS THE CRUMBS THEY ARE, rejecting any attempt the Administration may want to make to spin this as a victory without, in so doing, breaking totally from the Administration at this point.  

In other words become the LOYAL opposition to Obama, the ones standing up for the platform Obama ran on, the ones who are "more Obama than Obama".

Which is about the reality of the situation.

This decision cannot be decided solely on emotion.  We've earned the position we have (we've earned more, of course) and throwing it away should not be done in a fit of pique no matter how justified that pique is.

Because there needs to be a force to fight the rest of the crap that's waiting down the pike.  The next stab at "entitlements reform".  Jobs.  Financial reform.

There will be fights to strip Lieberman, maybe opposition to Reid's continuation as majority leader, doing something real about Wall St.  We are better poised to fight those battles where we are than as total outsiders.

We've more than likely lost the battle for health care reform in 2009.  But the war continues.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

And Why Would They Ever Believe Anything We Said (4.00 / 4)
If we back down on this, they'll expect us to back down on everything.  
we alwyas have - why not now? (0.00 / 0)
Look progressives have always backed down - that's why we are in such a mess.
[ Parent ]
Obama must publicly spank Lieberman, (4.00 / 6)
They were buddies in the Senate and he has stood by him. Now it's time for Obama to step up and save the bill with a public spanking of Lieberman his buddy. Otherwise it's not just Lieberman wanting to kill the public option etc, but Obama as well using Lieberman as a shield.

This may well be like the Iraq war when Democrats were afraid to vote their consciences because they were afraid to oppose the Iraq vote. Progressives are again being forced into a lose-lose situation. If the bill fails we'll get blamed and if it passes without the public option or something similar than we get blamed as well.

Time to take a stand. I say lets call the Obama/Lieberman bluff!

Jeff Wegerson

My thoughts exactly! (0.00 / 0)
When elected to the Senate, Obama skipped Durbin as his mentor, and turned to Lieberman. Obama campaigned for Lieberman and against Lamont. Is Obama now tied to his decision? I thought he described himself as open to a change when the facts warranted it.

I think I'm getting a sense of why Obama never campaigned in Minnesota for Al Franken, who must have been just too progressive for candidate Obama!

Which reminds me...can Sen Franken engineer another amendment to entrap some of the recalcitrant Dems...similar to the 30 Republicans caught in the vote for the Jamie Leigh Jones Amendment? Just look at the state and national endorsers!

[ Parent ]
Except (4.00 / 2)
Lieberman and Obama are working together on this. Obama is his friend, not yours.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
You only read my title. (4.00 / 1)
"Otherwise it's not just Lieberman wanting to kill the public option etc, but Obama as well using Lieberman as a shield. "

Jeff Wegerson
[ Parent ]
So it'll be for show (0.00 / 0)
bring on the dog and ponies.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Lieberman (4.00 / 5)
Mike- You've been the best, most clear-headed analyst of the real politics since this began. Frankly, I'd like to tar and feather little lieberman in downtown Hartford and walk him thru the streets, but my personal resentment fantasies don't count for much. What I need to see from Democratic leaders is the willingness to ride right over Joe, leave him in the dust, if that is what it takes. What I am NOT willing to see happen is to completely lose the Public Option and/or the Medicare buy-in. I know we do not understand the intricacies of ramming health reform thru with the 50+ vote majority, but enough is just enough. Every time they appear to get close, some damn fool like Lincoln, Nelson or little Joey just runs onto the field and moves the damn goalposts. Enough. Harry REid needs to gather it all anatomically together and ram this thing thru over the dead bodies if it comes to that. Patience has run out. And I, for one, Democratic progressive, will be sitting at home with a closed checkbook next election cycle if the Democrats cannot get this done.  
open this! transparency!! (4.00 / 1)
 
I honestly don't think we have enough information to make a decision yet anyway. Given that we literally don't know what bill Reid is intending to introduce yet, it's hard to know whether to oppose it or support it.

What does it mean to "have enough information"? Well, here's what Obama once suggested it meant:

"But here's the thing. We're going to do all these negotiations on C-SPAN.

"The American people will be able to watch these negotiations so if they start seeing a member of Congress who is carrying the water for the drug companies instead of for their constituents...

....Open this. Transparency. You will hold me accountable, you will hold Congress accountable. That's how we'll get welfare... uh health care reform passed."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Right, Mr President?

The word "transparency" and this Congress is an inside the beltway joke. It's the same sort of "transparency" we got from the fed with respect to the Wall Street bailouts.

These things unfold behind the curtains hidden behind the closed doors hidden in the revolving doors that ever link political and economic power in Washington.

Jesus, enough of progressives waiting for that to change. We need new tennants in Congress. We need more Kuciniches and Graysons and Sanders and Feinsteins. Get out into the communities and stir up the public outrage needed to organize folks to bring this about.

We won't need to wait for Reid and Lieberbman then.

We have enough of those good people in the Senate already. (0.00 / 0)
The bill that 51% of the Senate would write would be far better than what passed the House. We just need to allow our elected Senators to govern, by eliminating the filibuster.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
Feinstein progressive? Are you quite alright? (0.00 / 0)
Was it not Feinstein who signed on to support the Conrad-Gregg cat food commission by holding the USA's credit standing hostage?

All you need to know about Feinstein is that she was a former big city mayor.  You don't get that kind of gig without a drop safe strapped to your waist.  Fewer of them, please.

[ Parent ]
I say we kill it and start over from scratch. (4.00 / 2)
If the mess that's been drafted passes, then it's highly unlike (bordering on impossible) that we'll get a chance to fix it later.  Passing something, anything, and calling it a victory strikes me as being a recipe for disaster.
but how about (0.00 / 0)
"passing something, anything and NOT calling it a victory"?  

I ask you this because you uprated my comment above.

Well, not anything.  I will reserve my right to reevaluate when they finally show me a freakin bill.

Would you turn down a 10c raise when you were asking for a dollar?  No, but you damned sure wouldn't call it a victory.

Keep the anger, keep the fight, but don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

We need to learn how to handle a defeat.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
Because passing something, anything means that bad legislation becomes law. (4.00 / 1)
And there will be no fixing it later.  NAFTA is a prime example of this erroneous line of thinking.

That's why I say we must kill this thing so it can't be used as the rope with which to hang the nation.

[ Parent ]
Well, you may be exaggerating how bad it is. (0.00 / 0)
I'm not convinced that this will be worse than what we have now.  Although it could.

NAFTA was pure poison with no redeeming features, from day one.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
What do you think I'm exaggerating? (4.00 / 1)
Having followed this farce all year, I don't see what is really an improvement over what we have now.  And I really don't see how passing something that's likely to make things works actually helps anyone.

And yes, NAFTA was pure poison with no redeeming qualities.

[ Parent ]
$.10 raise but now... (0.00 / 0)
you rent your own uniforms, supply your own tools, and consent to employer-imposed fines for not doing so.  Would you turn that down?  
[ Parent ]
Reconciliation requires a Sunset (4.00 / 2)
"While I have been more understanding than many progressives of why Reid doesn't want to go the reconciliation route, for example..."

The most coherent post I have seen on this issue is here
http://blog.oup.com/2009/08/po...

Here's the bottom line. Since the Budget Act states that the Reconciliation measure covers the next ten years, the Byrd Rule had the effect of allowing a point of order to be raised against any spending increase (or tax cut) that does not contain a ten-year sunset provision. That's why the Bush tax cuts, passed via the Reconciliation route in 2001, 2003, and 2005, had sunset provisions written into them. If Democrats use Reconciliation, they will get a health-care bill, but it will expire.
( bold done by the author not me )

The reason Harry Reid doesn't do reconciliation is the same reason Nancy Pelosi does not like a trigger.  Times three.

Nancy Pelosi believes that if the Republicans regain power ( they will sooner or later ) ... the can change the trigger so it never occurs.

While reconciliation is that times three because Republicans do not have to regain the House, Senate, AND White House.
Any ONE of the three means come 2020 ... is expires.

Not only THAT, but there is no tinkering, improving, step by step to Single Payer system there.  Because in 2020 when it expires?  They have to start again totally and completely from scratch.

Reconciliation = Health care for 10 years.  Or since most things do not happen until 2013 or 20014 ... only 6 years or so.

But you are overlooking (4.00 / 1)
that it's much harder to take something away once people have it than it is to deny it to them in the first place.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.
[ Parent ]
But it isn't taking it away (4.00 / 2)
So are you TAKING the tax cuts away that Bush passed in 2001, 2003, 2005?

Or are you just letting them expire?

If you are TAKING them ... then it is a tax raise.  If you let them expire it isn't.
Semantics I know.

Regardless, do you REALLY want to be renewing this and re-fighting it every 10 years?
Not only that ... one of the goals is get it IN and tinker to get it improved.
Hell, some people hope ( and others warn ) that a public option is a stepping stone to single-payer.

You can't MODIFY or tinker a sunset bill. It has to be either rewritten from scratch or extended.  Those are the only two options.

So, what you pass this round via reconciliation is it.  Nothing added.  No improvements.  Everything wrong stays in no matter what.
Unless ...
you let it expire.

[ Parent ]
go nuclear (4.00 / 1)
I agree with Tom Harkin.  We need to think about about abolishing the filibuster.  Bush never had 60 Senators and we never used the filibuster pretty much.  So the idea that we need it for when were in the minority is lame because of that.  If we didn't use it for Bush we'll never use it.  It's undemocratic and it's standing in the way of the will of the public.  The public has never been so for big change like we are now with health care and other agenda's we voted on in 2008.  We have at least 50 senators plus Biden that we can get a really good health care bill on if we remove the filibuster.  4 rogue "democratic" senators are holding the entire country hostage.  We need to marginalize them.  Screw reconcilliation.  we can't play nice with these scumbags like Lieberman, Landreiu, Nelson, and Lincoln.  We have to go nuclear.  Maybe we can actually get things done.  We don't have forever.  There's so much of Bush's mess to clean up and restore the economy and climate change that we can't go with the status quo in senate rules.  We have to remove the filibuster.  Knowing that that is possible and that we can  just scrap what we have and get a really good bill, if they come out with such a watered down bill because we want to play nice, there will be hell to pay in the polls in 2010.  I am one of those people who will call people all day long to get rid of Liebermans, and the other senators that are holding us hostage.
The Decisions That Must Be Made | 108 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox