Feingold in for public option through reconciliation; Reid says reconciliation on the table

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 17:57


After a meeting today with Senator Feingold, Open Left reader PR writes in:

Feingold is in for P.O. through rec

That makes 34 supporters of using reconciliation to finish health reform, and 20 in favor of the public option.  See the whip count here.

Further, I have received confirmation from Senator Reid's office that "all options are still on the table," including reconciliation.  The aide with whom I spoke also reiterated to me that Senator Reid supports the public option.  While that is a "yes" and a "maybe," given the way we are counting votes, they are still positive.

The momentum continues.  Contact a Senator today.

Chris Bowers :: Feingold in for public option through reconciliation; Reid says reconciliation on the table

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Bayh now open to it? (4.00 / 3)
Not exactly a yes, but an improvement on previous no? See this mydd account of an NPR interview today.

http://mydd.com/2010/2/18/bayh...

In a more surprising move, Bayh also said that while he is troubled by the idea of making partisanship even worse, health care reform might matter more, and that he will consider using budget reconciliation to pass it. He wouldn't commit to the move, but did bring it up on his own without being asked about it first.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

Well, he's leaving so he can drop the bipartisan BS (0.00 / 0)
finally.

[ Parent ]
i swear (4.00 / 2)
If he delivers a a public option via reconciliation I will post a "Draft Bayh" diary here and at Daily Kos and apologize for anything negative I ever said about him. After all, the party could choose him as the candidate. :)



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


[ Parent ]
I wouldn't go that far (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
actually I think I am pretty safe (4.00 / 1)
Besides, what does it cost me?

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
The public option should be a Bayh position (4.00 / 2)
Moderate, supported by a clear majority of the population, and reduces the deficit. Is he consistent? We'll see.

I'd have to issue an apology too if he supports it.


[ Parent ]
Maybe he's being "Bayh-curious"? (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Well, he's leaving so he can drop the bipartisan BS (0.00 / 0)
finally.

[ Parent ]
Whoa, yet antoher glitch that caused multi-posting. (0.00 / 0)
I think I double-clicked on the "post" button.

[ Parent ]
Great find (4.00 / 1)
Will update as a maybe on the chart

[ Parent ]
On the other hand, you can't trust a word he says (0.00 / 0)
Lincoln used to support the public option, let's not forget.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
A Few Things, Y'All (4.00 / 4)
He supports a P.O through reconciliation, so long as it is deficit reducing, which something has to be to fall within true reconciliation rules (allegedly).  He said that he had not yet seen the Bennet letter.  

I told him that I was a single-payer supporter and that while I want a P.O and Medicare opt-in, single-payer is still the right way to go; asking him how to get there.  He thinks that actually a Medicare opt-in is the best path to that, and appeared very supportive of doing it.

At the (small) meeting I was at, at least four or five of us asked about public option through reconciliation.  One woman even said "I got an email asking me to call your office to ask you about this; but I'm here right now, so I think I should ask..."  Also, three to four people asked about Employee Free Choice Act.

Another two asked about recess appointing Craig Becker.  

Another person asked about ending the filibuster.  Russ very pointedly said that he is against getting rid of the filibuster but very much for reforming it.  After the meeting, when I was talking with him individually, we got into a good-natured debate about the Constitution, historical, and political considerations around ending the f'buster.  I didn't get to finish the argument -- but more importantly, Russ is not going to be a vote for ending the filibuster.  He did hint that there are more potential reforms afoot than just the Harkin bill.  

Most importantly, at the end right before he left, I said to him "Keep up the good fight, brother!" and made him give me a high-five.  It was pretty sweet.


Digby smells Kabuki (4.00 / 3)
So do I. Yes, it's true that Digby always smells Kabuki. It's also true that as a grizzled veteran of the War Against Stupidity and Reaction going all the way back to Nixon, I don't believe anything a Leader of the Democratic Party tells me until I see it myself. If it's true, show me -- and without the ostrich feather peeks and the sudden blackout just at the moment of truth. (Oh, wait...that isn't Kabuki is it? Never mind....)

yes, but if there's a vote things change (4.00 / 1)


[ Parent ]
Agreed (4.00 / 1)
An actual vote would be encouraging. Win or lose, the naughty bits would finally be out in the open for everyone to see. My instincts tell me that in the long run, the Clinton/Obama version of liberalism (if you can call it that) is a) based on a false notion of political stability, b) transparently self-serving (they aren't fooling as many people as they think) and c) simply delays the inevitable.

Then again, why would anyone make critical bets on the basis of my instincts? Well..... I may not be as smart -- or as accomplished -- as Obama or either of the Clintons, but FWIW, I don't wear alligator shoes.


[ Parent ]
Given your Quick Hit from Ezra (4.00 / 1)
maybe we need to be whipping the White House on this as well.  

Unless we assume that everyone there is against us, then whipping will strengthen the hand of our allies and weaken the hand of our opponents. That said, I'm not sure if it would be better to wait until the votes are there in the Senate or if the WH might intervene to prevent that.

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.


Feingold is significant (4.00 / 2)
because he was a process opponent of reconciliation in the past.

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox