And Ben Nelson takes some hostages

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 13:16


Joe Lieberman is not the only right-wing member of the Democratic caucus demanding further concessions from all other 59 members of the group.  Ben Nelson has joined the fray:

Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson - the moderate Democrat whose opposition is holding up the Senate's health care bill - says new language on abortion doesn't satisfy his concerns.(...)

Nelson says without further changes the compromise isn't sufficient.(...)

But Nelson said abortion wasn't his only concern and he didn't see how the Christmas deadline could be met.

I wonder if another order will come down from the White House for everyone else in the Senate Democratic caucus to cave to Ben Nelson:

Granted, Nelson has not said that he will filibuster, which puts his threat in the same, vague, gray area as the Sanders and Burris threats. More clarification when it comes.

Update--Nelson will vote no on cloture: Here is the clarification:

"If it's not at the point where I think it needs to be with the improvements that I'm pushing -- and they've made a lot of them -- then I will not vote for cloture on the motion to end debate," Nelson said in an interview on KLIN radio in Nebraska.

Even if Nelson stays firm in this position, and even if no changes are made to the bill, it is still possible the bill could pass without his support.  As noted earlier today, Olympia Snowe is signaling she might vote yes.

Update 2--Will Ben Nelson be attacked by the White House now? Good question from Jed Lewison.  I am sure the strong pushback against Ben Nelson from the White House will begin in 3, 2, 1...

Chris Bowers :: And Ben Nelson takes some hostages

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
And Ben Nelson takes some hostages | 37 comments
I look forward to hearing from the Village (4.00 / 1)
about how irresponsible this is.

I'm sure if we give in to what ever he wants, this will be the last concessions needed to claim victory.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

if rahm can squeeze 50 dems for voting for stupak (4.00 / 1)
but rahm cannot squeeze 5 conservadems then we gotta question the beliefs and convictions of the 50
[ Parent ]
You are never going to see Rahm (0.00 / 0)
squeeze 5 conservadem Senators, so we'll never know.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.
[ Parent ]
if the non-conservadems stand their ground we'll see a lot (0.00 / 0)
yes, that's a huge if...
[ Parent ]
Prolly not (0.00 / 0)
I think he'd squeeze the process hawks and drop the filibuster before he'll squeeze conservadems.  As long as the next election is won by conservatives his job is done.
[ Parent ]
bad scenario (4.00 / 1)
what if the senate goes to reconciliation and votes for the house bill? will there be a conference or will we end with stupak?
But then Stupak is lurking in the House for when the bill goes there (4.00 / 2)
And our Democratic representatives voted for Stupak the first time around.

And yes it was a maneuver to get the bill to the Senate and all that.  I'm caring less and less about the maneuvers.  The Democratic Party voted for Stupak.  Our senators approved their doing so.  The Democratic Party voted for Stupak.

What do I think they should have done? you may ask.  Vote against Stupak, I say.  But then the bill wouldn't have made it to the Senate? you ask.  That would have been a good thing.

Then we would never have been in the position of trying to ram the mandate down the throats of the American people.  Sometimes doing something on principle would actually work, but our reps are too smart for that.

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

They would vote for a bill without stupak, too (0.00 / 0)
Stupak lied to the Democrats, in order to get a minority of them to vote with all republicans in order to pass the amendment.  
[ Parent ]
your defense of the Democrats ... (0.00 / 0)
is that they're a bunch of principle-less whores?

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
[ Parent ]
I think that describes 98% of Congress, regardless of party (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
And it's not any better in other nations! (0.00 / 0)
Just in case you ask...
[ Parent ]
To misquote a neo-con icon (0.00 / 0)
you don't make laws with the legislature you want, you make laws with the legislature you have.

Or: when the two party system gives you lemons, make lemonade.

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

[ Parent ]
Since Obama hasn't seem to concerned with Bush (0.00 / 0)
executive power abuses, he could do a signing statement saying Stupak is unenforceable.

John McCain won't insure children
I'm not familiar with signing statements (0.00 / 0)
but can obama do this?

I thought a signing statement says obama himself won't adhere to whatever legislation he specifies in the signing statement? can he make the legislation in question not apply to others too?

[ Parent ]
Not just Obama himself (0.00 / 0)
but the executive branch - nonetheless, your point is correct.

Also, abuse of executive power, like pressuring Congress or intervening in primaries, is only for advancing conservative positions - never progressive ones. (Or so it would appear.)

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
Obama could break signing statement precedent (0.00 / 0)
and insert his own HCR plan with a signing statement.

As far as I know, there has never been a limit determined for how much a signing statement can alter the law signed.

I'm not predicting that Obama will do such an audacious thing, of course.

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

[ Parent ]
audacious, schmadacious (0.00 / 0)
depends on who wants it

lieberman gets top priority

[ Parent ]
Don't bite the hand that mentors you? (4.00 / 1)


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Abortion rights are at risk here (4.00 / 3)
What will women think about progressives hiding in the tall grass while their bodies are a bargaining chip?

If the bill passes, those rights will be compromised in some form, maybe Stupak, or Stupak with 2 words changed.  Killing it all is required.  Last time I looked, women are part of the Democratic base.

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

Yup, it still can get WORSE! How about StupakLiebercare??? (4.00 / 2)
Even more reason to call Burris and Sanders and encourage them to oppose that crap!
[ Parent ]
"the same, vague, gray area as the Sanders and Burris threats" Hey! (0.00 / 0)
No conspiracy theories, pls, folks, I'm not a puppet master who's pulling on Burris' and Sanders' strings!
:D  
You guys should be happy... (0.00 / 0)
...he opposes the mandate...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
Snowe is pro-choice so she'd better sign on to this unless (4.00 / 1)
she wants stupak language.  Meanwhile, Snowe is showing just now naive she is:

Snowe also said she's "mystified" as to why the insurance industry wasn't satisfied with the Senate Finance Committee bill, which had an individual mandate and offered "half a trillion dollars in credits and subsidies" to insurers.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c...

Sort of... (0.00 / 0)
Actually give her credit... at least she realizes that the bill just shovels money at the insurance companies.
[ Parent ]
No end (4.00 / 5)
Unlike the progressives, Lieberman, Nelson, Baucus, Landrieu, Lincoln (D-Wal-Mart), Bayh and Conrad have no limits.  They can never be bought off but they can easily be bypassed.  Where are your cojones Mr. Reid?  

Obama is like the wizard of Oz pushing for this behind the curtain but we no longer are fooled by the magic show.

Tell them to drop dead and mean it.  Or the Ben Nelsons will continue to grab more.  And while you are at it, take as much away from Nebraska as possible until this stupid little man is forced to cry uncle.

Agree (4.00 / 1)
Raise the stakes and push to end the filibuster through the nuclear option.  

A handful of ConservaDems are always the one to be appeased.  Aren't they sick of it?  Does the Obama Administration want years of this? And what happens if there's no longer 60 Democratic Senators?  

The Senate has basically turned the bicameral legislature into a unicameral one.  Fix the Senate and you've fixed the problem.          

[ Parent ]
If I remember correctly- Lieberman has also (0.00 / 0)
not completely agree yet either has he? This is how nuts the progressives - they keep agreeing to things the other side has not agree to yet as if they have come to a compromise with the other side.  
Last I saw (0.00 / 0)
He said YES he is voting for it.  This was Tuesday or Yesterday.  Google and you'll like Droopy.
[ Parent ]
That's long enough for him to have a new position (4.00 / 1)
He reminds me of that Talking Heads song:

"I've changed my vote so many times! Now, I don't know what I'd vote for."

pr something like that anyway.

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

[ Parent ]
It really Lucy telling Charlie she won't pull the foot ball this time (4.00 / 4)

[ Parent ]
Snowe (0.00 / 0)
I thought they had Snowe now.   Do they NEED Nelson?
Snowe is not sure. There's no confirmation. (0.00 / 0)
And then, there's also Burris and Sanders probably opposing. Burris very likely, Sanders somewhat likely. If this picture is right, the Obama gang has 58 votes now, including Snowe. Not good enough, and no more likely votes on the right wing. Guess they'll have to try another way to pass this.  
[ Parent ]
Is it unreasonable? (4.00 / 1)
Is it unreasonable to read Nelson's escalating demands as a consequence of progressive caving and White House solicitousness toward Lieberman? Nelson: "Well, if they throw bouquets at Benedict Lieberman, I'll go for mine..." The signal to all the other conservaDems on this score could not be clearer: Remain intransigent and you will be rewarded, even applauded.

But there is enough in this bill that is positive that walking away is troubling, at least for me. Not because it is so much better than the status quo. It isn't. But the status quo is not static: conditions will worsen faster still in the absence of some kind of reform. That means more people will die and suffer. And I think Lord Mike is probably right that we are unlikely to see a better bill come along - as crappy as this one is - if this one should go down. We are going to lose seats in the senate in 2010 meaning that only something even worse will be possible, assuming that politicians are even willing to take up health care again any time soon given this debacle.

The counter argument for me is not that we are likely to get a better health care bill if progressives stand up and stop this one (though some concessions our direction might be forthcoming). It's that there are many other extremely important issues to tackle down the road (admittedly not individually as important as health care, but collectively, who knows). If the White House finds that triangulating with conservaDems is an effective way to crush progressives, there will be no progressive legislation of any kind on any issue for the next number of years. Bowers argued as much months ago. So, avoiding that bad outcome may require demonstrating progressive resolve now on health care even if doing so risks the prospect of health care reform.

But then how do you tell the families working two and three jobs who would get some relief from this bill or the person with a precondition that will be in a better position to get coverage, however crappy, that they are to be sacrificed for political positioning?

There are many pieces on the board and they all interact.

Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts? Hot ashes for trees? Hot air for a cool breeze? And cold comfort for change?

If the NBC (4.00 / 2)
poll is right and this "plan has 32%" support, will it pass the House?

We assume it will, but if the collapse in support NBC yesterday is confirmed by other polls, I suspect that this Bill won't make it.

I can't think of this large a bill this unpopular ever passing.

Uh, what NBC poll? Got a link? (0.00 / 0)
Our folks here should add their vote, too!
[ Parent ]
here (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Yeah, but ... (0.00 / 0)
Insurance companies love this pile of poop.  They seem to matter a lot more than millions of people right now.  And they own a few Senators , too, including Aetna Joe Lieberman and Wellpoint Evan Bayh and former insurance commissioner Ben Nelson.

They probably own a few on the other side of the aisle as well.

As for the House, who knows.  It is shaky right now and the train is moving out of the station in a hurry with Wexler and Abercrombie departing for greener pastures in a few weeks and the Stupak five also wanting their take.

[ Parent ]
And Ben Nelson takes some hostages | 37 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox