One way to play hardball is to ask all Democratic senators to vote for cloture on the health care bill or lose their chairs. So, Patty Murray would potentially replace Kent Conrad as the chair of the Committee on the Budget and Jay Rockefeller would trade his Commerce chair for Max Baucus’ chair of the Committee on Finance. Maria Cantwell could take over for Mary Landrieu on the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and Daniel Akaka could replace Joe Lieberman as the chair of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Frankly, we’d be better off with these changes anyway. It’s not that I don’t value having senators from North Dakota and Louisiana, but they don’t need to be chairing committees if they are afraid to usher through the president’s agenda.
It really shouldn’t take more than a threat of doing this to get the Dem’s senate caucus in line.
Good idea, how do we make ’em do it?
Here’s a hint and an object lesson:
60 members of the House made it clear they won’t vote for a bill without a public option.
In four days, FireDogLake and partners raised nearly $350,000 for progressive members of Congress who agree to draw a line in the sand over a public plan.
You, too, can offer carrots to these progressive politicians at ACT Blue:
http://www.actblue.com/page/theytookthepledge
than Harry Reid playing hardball.
At the risk of sounding cynical, may I suggest that no one is playing hardball with these senators because the White House and the rest of the leadership are not sincerely behind the public option. Where there is will, there is a way. It is the will that is lacking here.
they’re number one interest is in passing a bill. part of doing that is setting the rhetorical playing field. it’s not easy to tell where one thing starts and the other ends.
A bill, any bill is what it looks like to me.
I’ve been making this point for more than a week.
Kent Conrad sounds like a parrot: “there aren’t the votes for a Public Option.”
Over and over again he says it, and everyone just swallows that without question.
I ask, really? Let’s have that vote and we’ll see which ‘Democrats’ dare vote against it. Put the cards on the table. I want to see if they don’t have the votes, and who these Senators are.
The dems be MEAN???
oh nooooooooooooooooo.
If they are forced to vote on this then the repercussions will hopefully come from below. If 5 or 10 Senators, or even the president (by veto), kills real health care reform they will have no where to hide and no more excuses. Any self-respecting liberal will have to be done with them and treat them as an adversary.
I agree with others that this is the last thing Reid and Obama want and the party leaders did not predict the tables getting turned on them like this.
Let’s face it. This is Obama’s worst nightmare. The tables are now turned so those that want to compromise have to explain their opposition to the possible. Their job is to vote and voting will count more than words. If their votes kill reform they have no where to run.
But let’s have our democracy. Let’s have a vote. Let’s see how close we can come to passing real health care reform. Let’s see who stands in the way.
Assuming the House can pass a single payer (or strong public option) it seems to me it’s going to be a very short list of Senators that are actually willing to stand in the way of reform. By the time it was narrowed to 15 it would be easy to whittle it down a little more. Start with the easiest targets.
Liberals need to go on the offensive. If Kennedy is alive he needs to be rolled in there to vote for cloture. Can you imagine Lieberman and Baucus, for e.g., being the only two non-Republicans voting with the Republicans after Kennedy makes a plea for them not to? Can you imagine only 5 Democratic Senators preventing a major plank of the Democratic party from finally being implemented after decades of work?
If Weiner and Kucinich and the progressives make this happen they will be a force to be reckoned with!! Finally, some liberals picking up a stick and fighting back! Whatever the outcome, a simple vote on this is a victory in my book. Let’s see what small group of Senators really don’t give a rat’s ass about America’s health care and are simply playing footsie with the Insurance executives in the bathroom stall.
The strategic move would be to see how close we could come to passing single payer before we move on to voting on the bills with and exchange and public option.
Remember almost half, if not more, Americans would go with single-payer and 77% think there needs to be a public option.
You have to ask why the Congress isn’t reflecting these numbers. Rhetorically, I know. Because a lot of these folks are representing United Healthcare instead of Arkansas, Montana, and Maryland. Because some of them are representing Blue Cross/Blue Shield instead of North Dakota.
Single-payer probably has one or at most two votes in the Senate.
Really? If you had a bill that expanded Medicare to those under 18 and those over 50, and then a strong public option for the rest, with Obama’s insurance reforms, you think you would only have 2 Senate votes? Even though Obama admits the end goal is single payer for all?
I thought most Democrats were for single payer but they just thought it wasn’t possible. If they have a choice to vote for it why wouldn’t they?
I would have thought more like 40 organic votes for the above bill (or other single payer-type bill) and then it would take some whipping to get to 50 (and to get the 60 for cloture).
Setting the bar low for a reason? 2?
And what do you threaten Reid with? He’s the guy that has to make these threats.
A 40-vote move to change majority leaders?
Is this actually possible? I know people bring it up all the time but I don’t think it would be possible to do this mid session. I remember that several liberal bloggers wrote that it would not be possible to remover Lieberman from his committee chairmanship without a new resolution that was voted on by the entire senate once he was approved.
This is either true or untrue. I really don’t know but I would love to hear a definitive response.
Interesting question. Lieberman is an independent (nominally the Lieberman for Lieberman Party); the reach of the majority leader probably can’t go there. But as for the other chairs, I think it’s an open question. I don’t know if it’s ever been tried. It would seem logical that the party caucuses would be free to manage their own affairs with regard to chairs on their side. But nothing about the Senate is logical.
The chairs are part of the organizing resolution and the resolution cannot be revisited without unanimous consent (or 60 votes). So, no, they can’t change a chair in the middle of a Congress. But they can take it away in the next Congress. And that’s the threat they would issue.
The Dems are too pussified to do that.
Either this goes through reconciliation, or we don’t get a bill with a public option.
I have renewed respect and appreciation for Lyndon Johnson—- Vietnam aside—- after watching the performance of the Democrats in recent months.
Absolutely, I agree. Wow, you talk about leadership.
I am pretty much of a
half empty” kinda person and so, when I see you posting re a hardball approach after just having read TPM report on the latest Cook Report – well!
At this point, I am starting to think that the Dems have once again displayed their unique ability to wrest defeat from the jaws of success! Of course, I have been so wrong, so many times, that maybe the glass isn’t half empty this time but its just me.