Reid's 3:15ET Press Conference

It'll be on TV - I imagine all the cable news networks will carry it.

There's been a lot of back and forth over the weekend about whether the White House supports Reid's charge for a public option in the Senate base bill. At this point, the kabuki's probably too thick to decipher.

But at 3:15ET, if Senator Reid announces an opt-out public option in his base bill (and I expect he will), it won't matter what the White House preferred last week: everyone will have to get on board with the announced plan and work together.

And as Ezra notes, even if all 60 Dem Senators haven't committed to cloture, the announcement will force their objections out into the open:

Rather than killing the proposal in a back room, moderates who won't vote for cloture will actually have to vote against cloture. That makes them a target in their next election, and ensures a lot of harassment from the left. Reid is, in other words, making it harder -- not impossible, but harder -- for them to oppose the public option. Procedurally, it's a big win for public option advocates.

More work to do, but this will be a big step.

Update [2009-10-26 14:46:28 by Josh Orton]: One more thought: after the press conference, I'll be very wary of any spin that dismisses Reid's move as theatrics designed to mollify his's bs intended to undercut the merits of the public option. In other words: the Village thinks the public option is simply a pet issue of the left, and hence any politician that embraces the policy is just appeasing the left. Bunk.

Update [2009-10-26 14:53:16 by Josh Orton]: This is exactly the type of public-option-undermining spin I'm talking about: making a very public push for the opt out right now, Reid can avoid blame later if it ultimately falls short and if the Senate ultimately goes with the trigger. He can point out — rightly — that he threw his weight and prestige behind the opt-out first. Just sayin’.

Update [2009-10-26 15:34:18 by Josh Orton]: And opt-out it is. Reid says he's not even asking the CBO to score the trigger plan. Best quote from the presser:

"We always look for Republicans. It's just a little hard to find them...I can count the moderate Republicans on two fingers."

Tags: Harry Reid, health care reform (all tags)



Re: Reid's 3:15ET Press Conference

This is a huge victory. I think liberals and left of center moderates in the Senate and House have started to realize that if they stand up to the Conservadems they can actually win.

This guarantees a public option in the final bill, assuming it is passed, which I believe it will be.

by Lolis 2009-10-26 10:25AM | 0 recs
Who is this guy?

and what did he do with Harry Reid?

Seriously though, if he comes through on this I will pull a complete 180 on the guy. I have long felt that he didn't have the cojones to get anything major done...if he proves me wrong now I will be very happy indeed.

My question is this: if the administration is on board with this proposal, or gets on board with this proposal, what are all the haters going to say?

by JDF 2009-10-26 10:32AM | 0 recs
They probably always were onboard

And we'll know soon.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-26 10:48AM | 0 recs

Many people have preached non-stop for months about how feckless our Democratic Leaders are. And they were wrong.

by QTG 2009-10-26 11:02AM | 0 recs

As they were wrong when they said Obama couldn't win the primary.
As they were wrong when they said Obama couldn't beat McCain.
As they were wrong when they said Harry Reid couldn't lead.
As they were wrong when they said Pelosi was beholden to the Blue Dogs.

We asked for the PO. America now has it.

(also, h/t to your signature. I hope you don't mind if I've come up with one of my own)

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-26 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Reid's 3:15ET Press Conference

Thank God someone is focused on something more than the signing statement in the White House. Of course, his own electoral chances next year are tied to this. But still definitely longer term thinking than the White House.

by bruh3 2009-10-26 11:09AM | 0 recs
Should the Administration be long term thinking?

Or should they be thinking about making sure they pack the Congress with Democrats in 2010?

Let Reid and Pelosi take a good deal (disproportionate amount of) of credit. Democrats become the party of accomplishment, while Republicans continue to play into the party of obstructionism.

I'm not saying this is their strategy. but it's another example of how your one dimensional criticism of this Administration ignores possibilities for greater legislative accomplishments.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-26 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Should the Administration be long term thinkin

The construction of your argument is such that it hardly matter what President Obama does. He's the winner.

I think claiming the White House intended this when they thought it impossible is an example of what I described before as supporter's logic.

"If things work out, President Obama intended it" when the other possibility is that it worked out despite him.

If President Obama announced the trigger, then according to you in another diary, it would because Reid could not get the votes.  All  roads of responsibility lead from President Obama. All legislation that results in success, even where President Obama was not a factor, was his doing.

He can show up, pour gasoline on the bill and set it afire, and still this would mean he caused the outcome we are seeing rather than other independent variables.

by bruh3 2009-10-26 11:33AM | 0 recs
Reading: It's Fundamental!

Wherein I say:

"...I'm not saying this is their strategy..."
And then you say:
"...The construction of your argument is such that it hardly matter what President Obama does. He's the winner..."
It might actually help, to, you know, read what you're responding to.

I know it burns you when Obama comes out favorable, but you might help yourself by stepping beyond the limited one dimensional thinking that because you didn't observe any action on the part of Obama, then Obama (the most powerful man in the world) made no action.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-26 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Reading: It's Fundamental!

Yesterday he was a bystander to the legislative process.  Today, drum roll please, he's the most powerful man in the world!

I have always said that if Obama gets health care done, I will give him all the credit in the world whether it turns out he had a brilliant strategy or not.  I happily stand by that!  But I mean, I could find 500 comments at this site attempting to preemptively defend Obama from a bad outcome in the legislative process that go something like hey, the Senate never listens to the President anyway, so get off Obama's back!  But if things are working out well, then gosh, of course it was Obama's doing unless you're saying the most powerful man in the world had no impact.

Like I said, if things work out then there's going to be enough accolades to go around and then some, but it's a bit much to start throwing around the 11-dimensional chess theories as though they've now been vindicated.

by Steve M 2009-10-26 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Reading: It's Fundamental!

 Actually, what was being said was more like "the Democrats are going to get this done, and in the process get the best reform possible." and "If you are squeamish, don't watch the sausage making process."

by QTG 2009-10-26 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Reading: It's Fundamental!

The fundamental difference I have with many of you, including most notably my long-time sparring partner Shaun Appleby, is this theory that whatever we wind up with at the end of the day, it was assuredly the "best reform possible."

You can always argue that politically, no better result was achievable, but saying it doesn't make it so.  In fact it's a rather implausible suggestion.

by Steve M 2009-10-26 02:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Reading: It's Fundamental!

I'll settle for 'BEST IN 50 YEARS!' which is not debateable, except in unicorn city.

by QTG 2009-10-26 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Reading: It's Fundamental!

Once the bill passes I will be very happy to wank around arguing with you about whether it is really a bigger deal than Medicare.

by Steve M 2009-10-26 04:57PM | 0 recs
Should the Administration be long term thinking?

I've been saying for days that the quirky little "anonymous aides" leak that came out last week was a chance for Harry Reid to redeem himself.  He's up next year while Obama has until 2012 to do some other popular stuff.  Very good strategery IMO.

by GFORD 2009-10-26 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Should the Administration be long term thinkin

The strategy was not that of the White House. It was that of progressives.

by bruh3 2009-10-26 11:37AM | 0 recs
Proof please.

Back up this assertion.

It is just as easy for me to say that this was the administration's plan all along. By ginning up support from progressives, the Senate moved int he desirable direction.

Let's wait for the evidence before we make hasty conclusions, although in the end, Obama is getting what he wants.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-26 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Proof please. /durbin-progressives-force_n_334438.html

Senator Durbin discussing why they had to include the public option.

by bruh3 2009-10-26 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Proof please.

Try reading the article next time:

"It's a zero-sum situation," said Durbin, who is in charge of counting votes in the Senate. "If we thought that just putting the trigger in meant that we'd end with 61 votes," he explained, then that's what leadership would have done.

This is all about the math.

by vecky 2009-10-26 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Proof please.

Grade A 100 percent nuts.

by bruh3 2009-10-26 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Proof please.

You say that a lot, even though it's clearly not true.

Furthermore, it's about as an appropriate a epithet as calling something "gay" or calling somebody "faggot" or "retard"

Please stop.

by lojasmo 2009-10-26 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Proof please.


by bruh3 2009-10-26 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Proof please.

The math is that the leftward flank of the Democratic caucus realized they have just as much power to make demands as Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson.  We saw this process play out very openly in the House; the only revelation here is that it occurred in the Senate as well, albeit more below the radar.

Most Democrats seem to just want to get a bill passed, period, and they couldn't care less about the policy arguments for this permutation or that one.  If that's the case - if the White House and Senate leadership are determined to pass a bill whatever it takes - then everyone has the same power to threaten a holdout.  It's just unusual to see the leftward flank actually exercising this power.

by Steve M 2009-10-26 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Proof please.

If Chris Bowers and Glenn Greenwald are correct as to their views on the subject, this will be a growing power in DC, and we will see more of this.

Chris basically says that the House progressives started to get their legs in the spring, and have executed this strategy since then.  The Senate has only started to happen recently. As I mentioned early in the summer all you need is a block of 10 to 15 to ensure legislative power. That was the lesson of the gang of 14.

Greenwald stated separately that the nature of this power was being tested here. That this is why this battle was so important to the Blue Dogs and Conservadems. If they lost this battle, their grip on the Democratic legislative agenda and outcomes in DC would begin to subside.

You are right you have not seen this in recent memory because the power blocs did not exist to do this. I think this year we are witnessing the rise of progressives as a power in DC. We will not know until the next few battles, but this was an important testing ground.

by bruh3 2009-10-26 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Proof please.

The reason why this episode is not guaranteed to repeat is that health care is too important an issue to the Democratic base for the party to just leave it on the table.  The status quo would represent a loss, so when progressives threaten to vote against a compromise bill and leave the status quo intact, that's a real threat.

On other issues, like DADT for example, the progressives have no bargaining power because the moderates are just fine with the idea that a bill never comes to the floor and nothing happens.  The status quo is working out fine for the moderates.  Not so with the health care issue, they need something to pass.

by Steve M 2009-10-26 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Proof please.

I agree to a large extent with your points  as a critique of my argument in the short term. However, I think the next decade will shift to favor progressive power as today's centrists are cycled out of power, and as I have said, that the GOP almost certainly will have to shift to center right or die as a party.

My point in a nutshell is that the scale will shift to support more progressive power, and that the infrastructure we are seeing come into power now are early precursors even if the full power will not be apparent for some time.

by bruh3 2009-10-26 04:02PM | 0 recs

...the progressive community could not be manipulated?

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-26 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: And...

the progressives are more influential than Obama?

I wonder if any tinfoil was harmed in the formulation of that hypothesis.

by QTG 2009-10-26 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: And...

This is example of that supporters logic. You ask for proof, but just in case I give it to you, you now set it up so you are right in your thesis anyway. All I can tell you is what people are reporting. If you want to add all these extra hidden layers that no one has proven to be the case beyond your own speculation that's up to you. Personally, right now, I want to just be happy it  is in the bill and now push for a more inclusive public option.

by bruh3 2009-10-26 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Reid's 3:15ET Press Conference

That is a great line

by bruh3 2009-10-26 11:38AM | 0 recs
Good Job Harry

Very good stuff. I think this bodes well for the PO and for Democrats in general; including, much to the disdain of many here, our President.

I don't know what is going to be more fun watching him eventually sign the bill or watching all of the haters find a way to denigrate him even as he signs it.

by JDF 2009-10-26 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Good Job Harry

One word that I hope leaves the Obama's cheerleader's lexicon is hater. Disagreement does not equal hate. That you think it does is why you will never be able to address criticism in anything other than simple terms that a high school might appreciate.

by bruh3 2009-10-26 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Job Harry

One word that I hope leaves the Obama haters' lexicon is cheerleader.  Disagreement (wiht Bruh3) does not equal cheerleading.  That you think it does is why you will never be able to address criticism in anything other than simple terms a high school(er) might appreciate.

by KLRinLA 2009-10-26 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Job Harry

A diary up today on the recommend list that attacks Huffington Post because it disagrees with President Obama. That's the sole problem they have with the site. Thus, why the term cheerleaders. However, I have met few people saying they hate presdient Obama. They disagree with him. The people cheerleading often offer no arguments other than trust him, he's got your back.

by bruh3 2009-10-26 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Job Harry

There is a huge difference between the sort of disagreement that some here offer up and the level of disdain that others offer up.

by JDF 2009-10-26 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Job Harry

If you can point to a list of specific instances where, for example, I have personally attacked President Obama because I said I dislike him rather than disagreed with his policy, strategies or his political choices, please cut and paste them here. It is easy to be vague by claiming there is a group of disagreement you accept while claiming that there are those you do not because of how they dislike President Obama.

This came up early on where Steve M who posts on this board had to point out to another poster that he have never once seen me personally attack Pres Obama although the other poster swore that I did.  Your emotions regarding what I am saying of your hero is not the same as me attacking him personally. Part the reason that is true is because I don't know the man personally. I can only comment on strategy and policy.

If you can not produce those quotes , stop making the assertion because it is dishonest. I treat him like any other politician who has been president, and view him through that lens. That's why of late I have been asking his zealous supporters to explain to me how they would view the list of behaviors I describe if this were not President Obama.

For the record, I donated to his campaign.  If I didn't like him, considering where I was last year , I would not have done so.  I don't have the money to waste. I also defended his choice of cabinet in December despite my misgivings.

I personally think his speeches are inspirational. BUT, I know words are not enough. Politicians live by exploiting the gap between words and actions. Therefore, I look to action.

I thought of the two choices last year he was the best choice. But frankly, I should not have to say any of that. It is irrelevant except to proving I am one of the "in crowd" Which is what this seems to be about.

I don't hate him. I dislike the policy and choices he makes which reinforces the status quo at a time where we can no longer afford it. A concept I raise in my most recent diary about risk shifting for example to the american people from corporate interest does not mention his name. It mentions Democrats. Why? Because these are issues I care about. He is only a factor because he is president. It is not personal to him other than that fact.

I can prove that many of you have made comments that amount to "trust Obama." You can not produce any history of  my saying I hate Obama. You just don't like I am so vocal in my disagreement  or about my dislike of blind support where as others try to be differential saying all the right conditions first to calm you down enough to listen.

That's not going to happen with me.  I don't care about personality politics other than how it gets in the way of policy and political discussions, and , thus necessitate my having to address it in diary after diary  that are about policy and strategy.

by bruh3 2009-10-26 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Job Harry

That's a spurious argument, dude (and no, I'm not going to find a statement by you saying you once worked in a dude ranch)

1.     hater     2553 up, 287 down love it hate it

A person that simply cannot be happy for another person's success. So rather than be happy they make a point of exposing a flaw in that person.

Hating, the result of being a hater, is not exactly jealousy. The hater doesnt really want to be the person he or she hates, rather the hat

5.     hater     289 up, 133 down love it hate it

A label applied to people who are more negative than positive when discussing another person. It most commonly refers to individuals whose negativity is so extreme that it is all-consuming. However, there are various levels and forms of being a hater, ranging from completely dismissing any positive traits or actions, to merely painting a less than flattering picture by using words with negative connotations. Hating is often attributed to jealousy, but just as often, it seems to stem from some other source.
Person A: Ben Gordon is one of the best clutch scorers in the league!
Person B: Gordon is an impressive scorer, but he's still a role player. er wants to knock someone else down a notch. p?term=hater

You have a very poor grasp of the contemporary lexicon.

by lojasmo 2009-10-26 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Job Harry

Please tell me you are not seriously linking to Urban Dictionary to make an argument over definitions? Next, you will be linking to The Onion or Perez Hilton.

by bruh3 2009-10-26 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Job Harry

Below, QTG is exhibiting the exact behavior I am referencing. Attacking me at all cost regardless of what I have actually said in the diary that he links to. Yet, you claim this is about hate rather than cheerleaders demonizing disagreement.

by bruh3 2009-10-26 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Job Harry

Some people cheerlead here, sure, but I think it is bizarre (and incredibly annoying) that you too quickly throw "cheerleader" on anyone that disagrees with you, especially when it is about political strategy.  It does seem that most people just disagree with you on strategy, but not the end goal.  

So when that is the case, must you behave like such a jerk to anyone with a different viewpoint on strategy?

Is everyone an Obama loving zombie because they think that blaming him for the failure of healthcare may be a bit premature?

Commenting on strategy prior to having it run its course is just speculation and opinion - so it's not like you are right (or wrong) about anything, just that it would have to be forensically determined later.  So Just tone your rhetoric down, please.

by KLRinLA 2009-10-26 01:51PM | 0 recs
Miss Huff 'n Puff aint disagreeing...

...she's misleading.

The two are very different. Disagree all you want, but mislead to garner page clicks, then we think you're turning coat for the fifth time in your life.

Case in Point:

Right now, there is the headline that says:

Majority Leader Says Senate Bill Will Include 'Opt-Out' Public Option... White House Official Says It's "Dangerous"
Oh noes! Obama hatez the public option!!!

But when you read the actual article:

"...CNN reports that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a written statement that President Obama is 'pleased that the Senate has decided to include a public option for health coverage.' CNN also reports: 'An [unnamed?] administration official went so far as to call Reid's move 'dangerous' but quickly followed by saying Reid knows his caucus better than anyone and will therefore have the support of the White House.'..."
Dangerous because we might end up with nothing? Or dangerous because of teh public option? It's the former.

Shame on Miss Huff 'n Puff.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-26 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Miss Huff 'n Puff aint disagreeing...

I suppose Senators Durbin, Brown, and Harkin are also lying.

by bruh3 2009-10-26 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Miss Huff 'n Puff aint disagreeing...

That they don't have as much support from Obama as they would like?  I'm sure they don't.

That's really all they're saying.

Obama is playing his cards the way he's playing them.  That we're ending up with a bill that looks a great deal like what he's always said he wanted is very telling, I think.

Thank goodness for those progressives who got Reid to offer a bill very similar to what Obama wanted while Obama fought against it TOOTH AND NAIL!

by lojasmo 2009-10-26 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Job Harry

your vocabulary, along with several other peopel on this board, does not indicate general criticism.  You may indeed just dislike the president, or just not care, but no amount of persuasion or work can be done to sway your opinion short of you getting exactly what you want.  If we disagree with you, we are wrong to disagree.

Want to call me a cheerleader, ok (Though I prefer supporter), I like it better than being a hater/denier.  Karma and all that...

by Hammer1001 2009-10-26 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Job Harry

 Cut and paste where I say I say I hate the President. If you can't find and paste such comments, then you are liar. it's that simple.

by bruh3 2009-10-26 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Job Harry

It must take a lot of blunt trauma to remain so obtuse.

by lojasmo 2009-10-26 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Job Hammer
Exhibit 6874384768234: 049/00
This passive-aggressive and mislabeled diary (which died a well deserved and unattended early death) is a perfect example of the actions of our esteemed and wonderful President are hated and despised regardless of their nature. Even when the haters are left completey unable to twist the facts into a reason to criticize Obama, they do it anyway. I'm pleased that it wasn't deleted in shame as others by the same diarist have been in the recent past. It's a classic.
by QTG 2009-10-26 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Job Hammer

You people are nuts. That diary is an "attack" on President Obama because I hate him? Wow.

by bruh3 2009-10-26 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: "because I hate him?"

Thou sayest it.

by QTG 2009-10-26 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: "because I hate him?"

Link to a diary in which I am not discussing policy or strategy or stop lying.

by bruh3 2009-10-26 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: "because I hate him?"

Link to the thread where I said you're an obtuse, dimwitted, retarded moran.

You obviously claimed I did, so prove your assertation.

Thanks, and good night.

by lojasmo 2009-10-28 08:41PM | 0 recs
Hey, in your own words:

"...I am one of the biggest critics of President Obama and Democrats here..."
Here, on a democratic web site.

You know, there is Red State.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-26 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Hey, in your own words:

THe full paragraph so people can see how nuts you are:

"I am one of the biggest critics of President Obama and Democrats here, but I want to point out some economic policy news that together are signs that may be the administration and Democrats are going to move in the right economic direction. Much of this you probably already know, but I want to focus on the news in one place as well as point out some additional things that I would love to see happen toward restoring America to a country focused on "Main Street" or "middle-class" capitalism rather than neoliberal economic thought. Main street capitalism focuses on increasing wealth for the greatest number of people rather than merely increasing wealth"

Yes, a Red stater would be arguing against neoliberalism in favor of middle class focused capitalism.  I really hope Jerome does ban some of you at this point. You serve no honest function here than piss on diaries.

by bruh3 2009-10-26 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Job Hammer

I really hope Jerome eventually bans this sort of lying on his blog. The fact you told a complete lie without regard to facs,a nd then someone recommends you for the lie is why I say this is about extremist support.

by bruh3 2009-10-26 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Lying?

 You must not delete that diary. It is now evidence. (You should thank me, because now more people will read the hitherto unread diary if only in order to draw there own opinion of what it was you meant to convey.)

by QTG 2009-10-26 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Job Harry

I still await a diary in which I am not talking about policy or strategy but personally saying I hate Obama. So far QTG has posted some diary in which I discuss why I was less pessmistic over policy, and if you know me, considering  just said that you are a liar if you can't produce a diary  demonstrate your claims- that should tell you that I don't do passive agressive. but because QTG posts a lie that you agree with you back slap the poster for the lie.

by bruh3 2009-10-26 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Job Harry

Stop trying to influence the jury. They can read the diary for themselves and form their own judgements.

by QTG 2009-10-26 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Job Harry

Huh?  You cannot possibly be serious with your characterization of that diary.

by Steve M 2009-10-26 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Job Harry

Steve M, you are entitled to be on bruh3's side if you choose. There's a rough 7 years ahead for your coalition, I have to warn you.

And History will always call the Public Option and the Single-Payer System which must inevitably follow it "OBAMA CARE". Not Harry-Care, not progressives-care, not Hillary-care, but


Get used to it.

by QTG 2009-10-26 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Job Harry

It is funny that you assume I will be disappointed on any level whatsoever if President Obama delivers a good health-care bill.  Not funny in a ha-ha sense, but more funny in a "what the fuck is wrong with people on the Internet?" sense.

by Steve M 2009-10-26 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Job Harry

Yes, reality is well known to have sides. It must be difficult living in your paranoid, "everyone is out to get Obama"  

by bruh3 2009-10-26 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Job Harry

I DEMAND that you find a post by me stating that I was on the CHEERLEADING squad in high school.  If you can't do that, you are a LIAR.

by lojasmo 2009-10-27 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Reid's 3:15ET Press Conference
later if it ultimately falls short and if the Senate ultimately goes with the trigger.
And if it has a trigger it will be defeated in the house and start over again next year. Believe it. It has a real no trigger public option or it WILL BE defeated in the house. At that point, I work hard for Killing the Bill, and supporting all and any progressive dem who works to kill it.
by commentist 2009-10-26 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Reid's 3:15ET Press Conference

There is no next year or ever.  If it fails now, it is done for a generation at least.  After seeing approval ratings fall drastically on this issue, no politician will ever want to touch this again with a 10 foot pole!

by LordMike 2009-10-26 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: If it fails now

I certainly don't think that failure is an option, or that it is likely. But Health Care Reform is crucial to recovery and the continuation of the American experiment. It will be revisited if required.

(There are some who will characterize anything that happens as 'a failure' but I obviously don't respect that approach - and you know who I'm referring to.)

by QTG 2009-10-26 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Reid's 3:15ET Press Conference

The fact that the Senate is pressing forward with a public option is a testament to the fact that they understand there is an upside to this legislation as well as a downside.

You're right, of course, that they would rather play it safe than continue to bring up a dangerous issue.  But succeed or fail with this attempt, the health care issue will come back again and again for the same reason it came up this year: the Democratic voters demand it.  It's one thing to shrug your shoulders helplessly when the other party controls Congress, but when you have a filibuster-proof majority, the base won't let you get away with twiddling your thumbs and renaming post offices.  If the Democrats control Congress, health care will always be on the agenda whether they like it or not.

by Steve M 2009-10-26 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Reid's 3:15ET Press Conference

Right again LordMike.  If this issue fails, Democrats are not going to be able to revisit the issue.

by Kent 2009-10-26 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Reid's 3:15ET Press Conference

And I agree with all posters, this cannot fail, which is why it WILL NOT have a trigger.

--> Because it will be Killed if it backtracks now.

This is why Reid has such a good bill, thats why the house will have an even better one, thats why the threat to kill it is real, thats why it is serious, thats why the pledge block formed, thats why we have a Public Option.

This is how we win.

Standing tall for conviction and principle.

by commentist 2009-10-26 02:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Reid's 3:15ET Press Conference

well this means people need to start supporting the progressive blocks in both the Senate and House as a power. I have a link below where they are tring to raise money for the progressives to fight the blue dogs going forward intot he future.

by bruh3 2009-10-26 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Reid's 3:15ET Press Conference

Well, we get to things from this: a) the public option (now it is a question of pushing the medicare plus 5) and b) the rise of progressives as a power in DC so we will see hopefully more action rather than less that will validate the American people trusting the Democrats. I am hopefully today due to this outcome, and we need to realize, as Chris Bowers discusses here, why this is happening: ressive-block-forced-public-option-into- senate-bill

If they keep pushing, they may be able to start undoing the damage of the Reagan revolution.

by bruh3 2009-10-26 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Reid's 3:15ET Press Conference

LordMike said: "There is no next year or ever.  If it fails now, it is done for a generation at least."

I think you are missing his point. He's saying that a trigger IS by definition a failure. That's why he would fight with progressive against "Trigger-happy" representatives

by jeopardy 2009-10-26 03:07PM | 0 recs
Oh stop with the hypotheticals

It doesn't have a trigger. It has the opt-out.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-10-26 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh stop with the hypotheticals

It has not passed. It has to go through three major steps, with even less democratic steps in between each important step.

One) it has to not just be introduced to the floor, which will be soon, after being costed, then it has to pass the floor, without ugly amendments.

Second the House still must pass its version, again without ugliness, and hopefully with improving amendments.

Then it must go behind doors, and with reps from at least the two houses, these two bills must be merged again, just as Reid merged the two Senate committee versions.

Then the merged version must be approved by both houses.

For example on hypotheticals, Lieberman just got his bribe (presumably) and has announced he will defeat the Bill onm the floor of the Senate. SOME will say, "give him what ever he wants" to "just pass the Bill"

I say end the filibuster forever and govern. Pass the Bill in the Senate with 51 votes and have done with it.

Thats why its a robust Public Option or nothing, there will be no Bill without a PO.

There will be no  "give him what ever he wants" to "just pass the Bill"


by commentist 2009-10-27 01:46PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads