Saving some of the billions going down the Iraq and Afghanistan sinkholes would have done us a lot more good.

What Baucus and Schumer are saying -- explicitly -- is that there are Democrats who would support a GOP filibuster to keep the public option from having an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate.

so there's that.

then there's harry reid, whose actions on FISA i believe are a good indicator of what goes down on health care: reid, as you'll recall, deliberately moved the shitty FISA bill to the floor. is there any doubt he'll favor a bill without a public option considering his recent statements?

Sorry guys: I'll try to wave my balloon and be optimistic, but i think we're getting fucked, "the Sun Tsu strategy of "formlessness" notwithstanding.

the punchline is that should the democrats lose ground in 2010, they will almost certainly say they were not responsive enough to conservative concerns.  you can see THAT excuse coming a mile away.

John Mccain Called his wife WHAT??

Grrr.


Recommended by Hideo Kojima

Nothing will pass the Senate with 51 votes. While virtually anything can pass the Senate with only 51 votes, nothing in health care reform legislation will actually pass the Senate with only 51 votes. The reason for this is two-fold.

First, Senate Democrats are not going to use the nuclear option. They just aren't.  That is too bold a move for such a cautious group-not to mention one that is so focused on a public image of bipartisanship.

Second, for many of the same reasons, Senate Democrats are not going to use reconciliation. If they attempt to do so, either in the Budget committee that is merging the HELP and Finance committee bills or by splitting the bill in conference, Senate Republicans will propose points of order requiring 60 votes to pass reconciliation. Since Senate Democrats have already ceded this procedural territory through their unwillingness to use the nuclear option, they will need 60 votes to pass anything. As such, they might as well just target 60 votes for cloture.

Until Senate Democrats are willing to use the nuclear option, they will need 60 votes to pass anything.

See? There aren't 60 votes for a public option, which makes reconciliation impossible, because you need 60 votes to block all Republican points of order. Are Baucus, Lieberman, Lincoln, or Conrad going to vote down multiple Republican attempts to block this bill when they won't vote for it in the end?

Don't be naive! They will probably be absent for the floor votes and let the bill stall. It will fail a floor vote, they'll all say "the bill can't pass with a public option, so strip it out" and that will be that.

The desperate search for "bi-partisanship" is why Baucus made a complete ASS of himself for months chasing after the Republicans on his "gang of 6" saying in effect "please give me a fig-leaf! Something!" They're desperate to sell out to the insurance lobby, but can't, because Republicans won't play ball with them!

Conrad has meanwhile raised the bar even higher, saying any bill that can't win 65 votes (i.e. ANY bill since Republicans won't vote for any bill) isn't "legitimate."

Thus, the futile efforts to craft a useless bill with triggers designed never to trigger, that Olympia Snowe might possibly vote for. (Only she won't. She'll play Lucy to fumbling Baucus and Obama's Charlie Brown).

Conrad, Lincoln and Baucus, will find reasons to vote against any bill with a public option. Period. The insurance industry hates it. Ergo it's out.

Obama will then come out and demand that progressives fold and vote for his piece of garbage health care bill with mandates and no choice. A nice big giveaway to the insurance industry. And they'll fold like they always do.

Even the prospect of being crushed in the 2010 election won't make them stand up and fight back. Not one progressive will dare vote down the President's "signature agenda."

We'll get an utter piece of garbage that Olympia Snowe will demand, but ultimately will refuse to vote for, and Conrad, Lieberman, Lincoln and Baucus will ultimately grumble and support.

The American people will ALL hate it with a passion of course. And Democrats will wring their hands and say "we did the best we could." Privately, they'll all be pleased Obama ultimately didn't make them cross the insurance lobby by drawing a line in the sand and demanding a public option.

Then after Democrats are crushed in 2010 they'll blame the base: "liberals pushed us too hard on the public option the American people didn't support!" (The 65% support levels for a bill WITH a public option will be conveniently fogotten and ignored).