Nelson is a just an idiot trying to protect the rich. How many Nebraskans are making that kind of money? What an ass. Thank god for reconciliation, we can definitely raise taxes that way later on.

Hard for me to believe any of these people would kill the bill in the final analysis. But they are more likely to win a game of chicken with the liberals who really want health reform to pass, and they probably know it.

It's incredibly difficult. And I dare all the Senate's critics to do a better job.

When I was young, I was in a simulated Senate. I had to create a bill, and then run around and try to get other "Senators" to agree to vote for my bill. Naturally, everyone wants something for their vote. Few said hey, that's a good idea, I'll vote for that on principle. We'd love to think that's how it works, but that's never how it works.

I think the final bill will be more similar to the Senate bill than the house. If they can get any positive changes around the edges, that will be great. But we'll probably be stuck with most of this "as is."

"If you look for the social economic motive, you will not have to wait for history to tell you what was propaganda and what was truth." - George Seldes

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/25/808924/-Clapping-Harder-will-not-make-Jane-Hamsher-righ t.-No-matter-who-says.

The more the conservadems say stupid stuff like that, the sooner people will understand that the current use of the filibuster is ridiculous.

I agree. Landrieu and Nelson come from pretty conservative states.  I think that maybe the only way to move those senators to the left is for the people in those states to move left on the issues. Convince the people, and the senators will come along. Problem is, the people aren't convinced.  Maybe progressives need to do a better job at talking to conservatives, helping them see that progressive stances are in their own and the countries best interest.

Or do you no longer believe your analysis from several months ago?  Has the situation changed that much?

50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

   that's because in your world, the one where your impoverished imagination cannot conceive of our not being hostage to these centrists, such obstacles are a "given" and you dismiss and ridicule the idea that the American people could and ought to actually reform their system more radically so that these hostage-takers find their leverage removed.

   The simple fact which your post here leaves unmentioned other than by indirect allusion via the remarks of those you cite is that the health-care reform bill is still very much in doubt.  But that didn't stop you from a premature "celebration" thread as soon as the Senate passed its version.

    I can already predict how you'll "report" and "explain" it if in the end, there's no reconciliation bill or none that can pass.

   After this process, whatever the outcome, what then will be your excuse for continuing to put off the more fundamental reforms?   There'll always be some urgently-needed legislation the passage of which you'll assert we can't afford to jeopardize by such a long(er)-term project in reform.

  If Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's autobiography could be entitled, Giant Steps, Barack Obama's memoir of his term as president shall have to be titled, Infinitely Tiny Steps.

   That' not good enough; not for a world which sits on a razor's edge and needs clear-sighted and bold thought and action to get it off that razor's edge.

The Republicans filibustering is another matter. They've declared that health insurance reform is a war against the people of the country, that it will result in the loss of our freedoms, that death penalties are a legitimate concern. This is insane of course, but given the premise this is what the filibuster is for; a desperate measure used as a last resort by the minority to prevent the tyranny of the majority from ramming something through.

But the centrists are different. They publicly support health reform. They say they want to pass it. It makes no sense to say as the bill stands they support, but if you make this one small change, not only will it change their vote, but they now feel impelled to use the full power of the filibuster, something meant for emergencies.

This should be understood; one of those unwritten understandings I heard the senate has that makes doing business possible. But they're breaking it with impunity. The only remedy I see is to have progressives start using the filibuster to routinely kill legislation centrists favor, but I don't know what that would be.