Mitch McConnell asks a question about the health care summit.
“If they’re going to lay out the plan they want to pass four days in advance, then what are we doing there on Thursday?” McConnell asked.
McConnell is referring to the White House’s intention to offer a complete bill on Monday and post it on the internet. The president invited the Republicans to do the same. But rather than take health care reform seriously, the Republicans ask stupid rhetorical questions:
Q After meeting with you, John Boehner came out and told us, “The House can’t pass the health care bill it once passed; the Senate can’t pass the health care bill it once passed. Why would we have a conversation about legislation that can’t pass?” As a part of that, he said you and your White House and congressional Democrats should start over entirely from scratch on health care reform. How do you respond? Are you willing to do that?
To which Obama responds calmly:
THE PRESIDENT: Well, here’s how I responded to John in the meeting, and I’ve said this publicly before. There are some core goals that have to be met…Now, we have a package, as we work through the differences between the House and the Senate, and we’ll put it up on a Web site for all to see over a long period of time, that meets those criteria, meets those goals…So I’m going to be starting from scratch in the sense that I will be open to any ideas that help promote these goals. What I will not do, what I don’t think makes sense and I don’t think the American people want to see, would be another year of partisan wrangling around these issues; another six months or eight months or nine months worth of hearings in every single committee in the House and the Senate in which there’s a lot of posturing. Let’s get the relevant parties together; let’s put the best ideas on the table. My hope is that we can find enough overlap that we can say this is the right way to move forward, even if I don’t get every single thing that I want.
In other words, Obama is framing the argument in a way that failing to pass any health care reform simply isn’t an option. The bill has been marked up by five committees, passed by both chambers of Congress, and melded into a final compromise by the White House. If the Republicans want to obstruct, that’s their right, but Obama is passing it anyway. So, the reason McConnell and Boehner are showing up on Thursday is to get humiliated and exposed as the obstructionists they are. The only alternative is for the Republicans to do what the president suggested, which is to offer ideas to make the existing bill better or to provide a compelling alternative that can pass Congress. They won’t do that, so the trap is set.
The only question I have is over the math. Where are the fifty votes coming from?
That Obama quote reminds me of a diary you wrote quite a while ago that really helped me see his process. I’m too lazy and unskilled now to go back and find it – but I believe it was an interview where he was questioned about EFCA.
Obama lays out his core goals and then invites folks to produce strategies to reach the goals. It means that the goals are off the table for discussion and are assumed. Great negotiation tactic!!!!!
We’re seeing the fruition of that tactic on HCR now. And I get an odd sense of confidence in how consistent he is with this kind of strategy. I suppose its the security of knowing what we can expect from him – regardless of whether or not we agree with where he’s going.
OT, but not totally OT, since we’re talking about the present-day GOP and it doesn’t hurt to remember how it got that way. Anyway, good writing ought to be read:
http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2010/02/monster.html
Thanks for the link. An excellent piece of writing.
Byrd is a definite “No” on reconciliation.
Also, it is my understanding that a supermajority is still needed on many procedural votes in the process. The simple majority only comes in to play on the final vote.
If that’s the case, the 50 votes don’t even matter.
Well, you can’t filibuster the bill and it doesn’t require 60 votes to pass. The only problem would be if the Democrats needed to overrule a ruling by the parliamentarian. So, for example, if the a point of order was sustained against the germaneness of the public option, it would take 60 votes to overcome that. But, things should move smoothly.
hired by the Republicans?
Can’t Biden just…overrule the parliamentarian?
hmm. He probably could. I’d have to go look up the rule. I see that that possibility had been discussed in blog threads, but I didn’t find a source during a cursory search.
The problem is it would look like shit.
The problem is that the administration would care that it would look bad. Most of the country would never know or care.
According to an article yesterday in “The Hill” (thehill.com/homenews/senate/82421-senate-gop-dems-dont-have-votes-to-use-partisan-tactic-on-health-
reform), Republicans sent out a press release citing 18 Democratic Senators who have made statements in the past opposing the use of reconciliation.
For vote counters, the Democrats need to hold at least 9 of the following 18, plus the rest of their caucus:
Bayh
Baucus
Begich
Byrd
Conrad
Dorgan
Feingold
Harkin
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Nelson, Ben
Pryor
Reid
Rockefeller
Specter
Based on the nothing more than the article, I’d guess that Baucus, Bayh, Begich, Conrad, Harkin, Landrieu, Lautenberg, McCaskill, Reid, Rockefeller and Specter are in the “leaning for reconciliation” category as of today.
two separate things.
that list refers only to the first option.
Bayh(!) is now on record saying he’ll support reconciliation as a last resort, and Reid has said he’s planning to use it if needed. So the list is at least a little out of date.
And don’t forget, Nelson won’t get his special doggy treat unless the thing passes.
can’t imagine Lautenberg wouldn’t support it – he’s been in the hospital though.
Lautenberg has already signed up to support reconciliation for the public option. I would assume that that probably is an indication that he would support reconciliation on a broader basis also.
Feingold, Lautenberg, and Specter have all signed onto reconciliation for a public option, and I would hope that that means that would support reconciliation on a general basis. Rockefeller, who was one of the “co-sponsors/co-signers” of Sherrod Brown’s Senate Resolution 156 (May 21, 2009) that calls for a public option, has nevertheless come out against using reconciliation for a public option, and seems to be set against the use of reconciliation for any reason. Of the names you listed, Harkin and McCaskill are also co-sponsors/co-signers of Res. 156, but they have not pledged support for reconciliation for a public option.
I would have expected that all 27 existing supporters of Res. 156 (Kennedy was the 28th) would have immediately pledged support for reconciliation for a public option, but Rockefeller’s announcement, in addition to making me wonder about the actual extent of his support for the public option, has made me question whether there may have been a change of heart among the original supporters. Fourteen of the 27 (Brown, Schumer, Mikulski, Boxer, Reed, Leahy, Menendez, Gillibrand, Merkley, Udall (Tom), Sanders, Burris, Lautenberg, Shaheen) have pledged support for Bennet’s proposal for reconciliation to secure a public option, and an additional 7 (Bennet, Feingold, Feinstein, Franken, Kerry, Specter, Whitehouse) who didn’t sign Res. 156 have signed on, for a total of 21 who have pledged to pass a public option through reconciliation. If the rest of the Res. 156 supporters – twelve (13 minus Rockefeller) are added, that brings us up to 33. The 12 are: Dodd, Bingaman, Durbin, Harkin, Levin, Stabenow, Casey, Inouye, Kaufman, McCaskill, Cardin, and Akaka. I would imagine that they are all probable supporters of Bennet’s proposal, and, for the moment, let’s assume that they are.
That leaves us with these 26, and we need at least 17 of them:
Baucus (no way)
Bayh (maybe)
Begich (maybe)
Byrd (no)
Cantwell (maybe)
Carper (maybe)
Conrad (I doubt it)
Dorgan (maybe as a parting shot)
Hagan (hard to get a reading)
Johnson (I doubt it)
Klobuchar (I’m surprised she hasn’t pledged already)
Kohl (maybe)
Landrieu (I doubt it)
Lincoln (who knows)
Murray (I think she’s leaning against reconciliation)
Nelson, Ben (no)
Nelson, Bill (maybe)
Pryor (I can never read him)
Reid (He’s not committed yet, but he will if he has the votes)
Rockefeller (no)
Tester (maybe)
Udall, Mark (I’m surprised he hasn’t pledged already)
Warner (maybe)
Webb (I doubt it)
Wyden (maybe)
Lieberman (who knows?)
I only see thirteen fair to middling possibilities. Not very encouraging.
Where are the 50 votes?
First of all, I don’t believe anyone on the Democratic side except the usual suspects is a flat-out “No” on something they haven’t seen. So reports that Byrd is a “No” are probably premature.
If Byrd turns out to be a “Yes”, the things that he says yes to will swing a lot of weight.
Second, if after the summit and the massive campaigns MoveOn, HCAN, and other groups are planning, there are not 50 votes for anything and it dies, those Democrats who stood in the way will lose their next election. The Democratic base (and this goes way beyond the DFHs) are tired of the tactic of posturing strong and collapsing so that no one can really take names. In the Senate the vehicle for that was the procedural votes.
Third, the process by which healthcare has moved through the Congress has shown how corrupt that body has become. This will be an issue against incumbents in several upcoming elections. Whose incumbents will be hurt most remains to be seen, but there are some signs that Southern Republicans might feel some backlash. Don’t bet on the November election knowing what you know right now.
Fourth, the activists are beginning to gear up for a fight in this election. It is the sporadic part of the base that need motivating, especially the minority and youth voters who came out for the first time last year. Aside from some folks who remember Terry Sanford, Richard Riley, and Jimmy Carter, this is the base of progressive Democrats in the South. And in the South at least for this election, any Democrat is better than no Democrat yet again. There is no other way to build the movement. How Obama plays this effort to get healthcare reform could make this job easier or harder. If he succeeds in nailing Republican obstructionism on daytime (or primetime) national teevee with a large audience, it could be an significant factor in November. Folks here are looking at it a little like a political Super Bowl.
Passing a decent healthcare bill is the only thing that can give any incumbents an edge this year, seems to me. Plus a good jobs bill, etc. Who can capitalize on the anti-incumbent mood? The ones who can say “I stood up and voted against the insurance lobby and the banker lobby and the Washington insiders to get something done for the American people. It was a bloody struggle, but we came through for you in the end. We got fought our way past the forces of greed and corruption, and we’re not about to retreat now.”
I think the notion that Reps and turncoat Dems will win because they blocked everything is a yapping-class myth. Of course it all depends on first, passing some good legislation, and second, celebrating the accomplishment as a victory against the corrupt establishment. The real question is, can the Dems bring themselves to do that without cringing it to death?
The thing that made me angry was the total unwillingness of Reid to expose any Democrat in the Senate to a vote that could damage their chances to get reelected. When any Senator takes the money and votes against the best interests of the people they must and will face the consequences. No one had to vote. Nelson and Lieberman only had to threaten to join with the Republicans to serve their corporate masters, not actually vote on the record. After they ruined the bill they could vote for it. I want to see a vote on the public option, even if it loses, so those who vote against it have to face the voters. I think any Democrat who has not already ruined his/her political career will vote for it.
Great post, I’ve been hoping that it was going to play out as you said, but have been skeptical. The Administration has to pass something, there is no other option.