Patterico's Pontifications

12/18/2009

ObamaCare: Will Ben Nelson buckle? And what about Jim Webb?

Filed under: General — Karl @ 6:20 am



[Posted by Karl]

On Thursday, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) told KLIN radio that the latest compromise language on abortion funding in ReidCare was unacceptable.

Thus, the question of the moment remains whether he will cave on the issue at some point. After all, just a month ago, Ben said he would be satisfied with the language approved by the Senate Finance Committee, which was less restrictive than the Stupak amendment added to the House bill. However, at the Lincoln JournalStar, Dan Walton argues that Ben will stick to his guns, citing the senator’s strong ties to Nebraska Right to Life.

Of course, Ben may have an easier time sticking with his position because abortion is not his only problem with the Reid bill. He reaffirmed to KLIN that there are “other substantive issues” keeping him from voting for cloture and ending debate. Indeed, Nelson has voted for more Republican amendments to the bill than any other member of the Democrats’ caucus. Moreover, Ben’s background is in the insurance industry (and insurance regulation); he represents a solid GOP state with a significant insurance industry presence.

Like Ben, No. 3 Dem defector Evan Bayh (D-IN) received more than $470,000 from the health insurance industry since 2006. Bayh’s wife is a director at Indianapolis-based health insurer WellPoint Inc.

Some may surprised to learn that the No. 2 Dem defector is Jim Webb (D-Va). Indeed, Webb and Nelson have consistently voted for GOP motions to recommit the bill back to the Finance Committee. “Smoking out” senators like Webb has been part of the GOP’s strategy in offering all of these amendments to the bill. I am a bit skeptical that the GOP can get Webb’s vote for a filibuster, despite the big GOP election victories in Virginia last month.

Ben Nelson remains the man of the moment, and his shift on abortion in the past month leaves everyone hanging. Does it signal that he is looking for some formulation that moves him closer to backing ReidCare? Or — as with Lieberman suddenly opposing the Medicare buy-in he once advocated — is Nelson looking for ways to avoid getting to “yes?”

Note: Thanks for the Lincoln JournalStar piece and the National Journal chart go to Jay Cost (of RCP’s excellent HorseRace blog) via his new account on Twitter.

Update: Jay Cost has posted his own take on “The Democrats’ Health Care Dilemma.”

–Karl

64 Responses to “ObamaCare: Will Ben Nelson buckle? And what about Jim Webb?”

  1. Gateway pundit points out a new poll suggests that if nelson votes yes, that he will face an ugly reelection.

    http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/12/voting-for-obamacare-will-end-ben-nelsons-senate-career/

    and i would be very surprised if Webb signs on, given how big the swing was in Va recently.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  2. There are several people that can vote no but allow cloture. That’s about it. The GOP can lie and say those people voted for health reform though.

    imdw (ee9fce)

  3. It is all the GOP’s fault !!!!!!!!!

    JD (c7b6c7)

  4. Webb will have a hard time living in Va if he votes for the bill. More and more people are getting to know him by reading his book which shows he’s a pedophile.

    Scrapiron (996c34)

  5. imdw

    um, if you vote in a manner that allows for it to pass, then you have voted for it.

    Or put it this way. if a person can truthfully say that but for your actions, the bill would not have passed, then how can you say you are not responsible for its passage?

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  6. Nebraskans probably wouldn’t dig the whole “I voted for it before I voted against it” vibe. That sort of tripe flies in Blue states, not so much in red ones.

    Karl (cc4af5)

  7. “Or put it this way. if a person can truthfully say that but for your actions, the bill would not have passed, then how can you say you are not responsible for its passage?”

    The GOP could go and hold a tantrum on the senate floor, and that might stop this bill. Does that mean that their failure to do that means they voted for this bill?

    Then again, many members of the GOP voted for the Stupak amendment which made sure that the bill passed the Gouse. Are they responsible for the house passage, even though they voted against the final bill?

    Again, this is all part of making it so that 60 votes on the merits are needed to do anything in the senate. That’s a relatively new idea, and one we should get rid of.

    imdw (c5488f)

  8. scrap

    i don’t like webb, but his novels are fiction, not reality. i will give you that they are creepy on sexual and racial issues, but its not pedophilia.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  9. imdw does have a point that the cloture vote is the key and Senators like Nelson, Landreaux, Lincoln, Webb, and Baucus could all vote no in the “official” vote to provide themselves cover and it would still pass, so long as they voted to end cloture (along w/ Lieberman).

    But “lying”? Please. All the GOP has to do is say that Senator Nelson, Lincoln, etc. vote was essential to the final passage of the bill. And if the voted for cloture, that would be the truth. If anything, voting yes on cloture and no on the final bill — all the while swearing you opposed this bill with every fiber in your being — will probably be seen as the dishonest position, given how high profile this issue has grown.

    Sean P (4e8ea3)

  10. Duh. House. not Gouse.

    imdw (c5488f)

  11. “Nebraskans probably wouldn’t dig the whole “I voted for it before I voted against it” vibe. That sort of tripe flies in Blue states, not so much in red ones.”

    Do nebraskans like liars? The senator can vote to end debate and vote against the bill. And people lie about what that means but that’s what he did.

    “But “lying”? Please. All the GOP has to do is say that Senator Nelson, Lincoln, etc. vote was essential to the final passage of the bill. And if the voted for cloture, that would be the truth. If anything, voting yes on cloture and no on the final bill — all the while swearing you opposed this bill with every fiber in your being — will probably be seen as the dishonest position, given how high profile this issue has grown.”

    Where you around back when dubya was trying to get his judges confirmed and asking for a “up or down vote” ? What did you think about this topic back then? Who’s up for an “up or down vote” on health reform? Matter of fact, who’s up for an “up or down vote” on another stimulus or the Employee Free Choice Act?

    Not the senator that represents less than 1 percent of our population?

    imdw (c5488f)

  12. Anyone recall imdw screeching about cloture when someone else was President?

    JD (425b57)

  13. Imdw just does not like our system of governance. If gets in the way of its totalitarian impulses.

    JD (425b57)

  14. Imdw

    > The GOP could go and hold a tantrum on the senate floor

    Well, you are a little vague on what you actually picture them doing. But yeah, okay you got me. I am not advocating them doing anything that gets them physically thrown out. Oh, and in case you think of it, I am not advocating murder either.

    Thank you for making that silly point.

    > Then again, many members of the GOP voted for the Stupak amendment which made sure that the bill passed the Gouse.

    Except it didn’t. they might have seen rebellion on the left, like we are seeing from Dean today.

    > Again, this is all part of making it so that 60 votes on the merits are needed to do anything in the senate. That’s a relatively new idea, and one we should get rid of.

    That is true. it used to be 67 votes. But its always amusing to see the dems, who for the first time used the filibuster to block judicial nominees when bush was president, suddenly say they don’t like the filibuster.

    The fact is that it is procedurally impossible to pass the law without cloture. Anyone who votes for cloture is voting for obamacare.

    And seriously, this is remaking 1/6 of the economy. And it will bankrupt the entire insurance industry. If you are going to let it pass, shouldn’t you have the balls to vote for it?

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  15. imdw

    > Where you around back when dubya was trying to get his judges confirmed and asking for a “up or down vote” ? What did you think about this topic back then?

    There is a difference, you know, mainly in the fact it was unprecedented to apply that to judges. but applying the filibuster to laws? well, that is the bread and butter of the thing.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  16. Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Refer to the troll as imd-dummy. That will get the point of recognition across to it.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  17. I don’t agree with most of the stuff imdw writes; however, on this voting for and then against is the current way many of these elected to office act. It is used as cover. And in close races, the party leaders will allow it to get bills passed and attempt to protect some of their own.
    But Sean #9 is right – and, hopefully, those few Dems that do vote Yes for cloture and No to the final bill will (and should be) demonized for it.
    What’s also interesting, is the list of things each Sen gets when they start dragging their feet. It would be great to see what is added to the bill(s) as Nelson and Webb hem and haw.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  18. “That is true. it used to be 67 votes. But its always amusing to see the dems, who for the first time used the filibuster to block judicial nominees when bush was president, suddenly say they don’t like the filibuster.”

    I was lukewarm to that idea and would have been ok with ending the filibuster then. Now I totally see how worthwhile it would have been. We’d have better health reform, better union legislation, and in exchange for what? For a few appelate judges instead being slightly more wingnut judges.

    imdw (017d51)

  19. > Not the senator that represents less than 1 percent of our population?

    What a dishonest buch of tripe. Ben Nelson won’t have any ability to maintain the filibuster if not for the other 40 senators opposed. so its not 1% of the population blocking the other 99%. and considering that this will deepen our economic misery, good for him and the other 40.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  20. imdw

    > I was lukewarm to that idea and would have been ok with ending the filibuster then.

    riiiight. i believe you.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  21. “There is a difference, you know, mainly in the fact it was unprecedented to apply that to judges. but applying the filibuster to laws? well, that is the bread and butter of the thing.”

    It’s been used to unprecedented levels lately. And back in the day… filibusters actually needed filibustering. That’s not so true today. We don’t have to completely get rid of the thing. We can just go back to it being the theater that it was. So that the forces of reaction can have their day and make their show.

    imdw (017d51)

  22. I have a question for the medical professionals.

    First some background. My dad was a hospital administrator. He retired in the mid-1960s but maintained many of his professional contacts. Shortly before his death in the early 80s I was visiting when he had a party with many of his professional colleagues. At that time many of the people present complained of the ever increasing administrative costs imposed by various and sundry state and federal regulations. When I inquired, I was told that, while the cost of meeting the requirements themselves was high, the costs of administering and reporting the requirements were excessive. As a group they agreed that the mere administration and reporting requirements exceeded 10% of their annual overhead. I thought their estimates were excessive and – to a man – they defended the numbers and considered the 10% figure conservative. Their numbers included employees assigned to no other tasks, office space, office machines, supervision, time spent by care-givers away from patient care, forms and stationery, and their own time away from other business.

    So, my question is this: What are the associated costs of meeting today’s federal and state requirements? How much of the ‘high cost of medical care’ is directly attributable to governmental regulation?

    Robert N. (0e0d35)

  23. Right – so by all means, just throw it out entirely so imdw’s totalitarian impluses can be sated. What’s the difference between a radical progressive in the US and Trotsky? The radical progressive thinks he didn’t do quite enough.

    Dmac (a964d5)

  24. “impulses”

    Dmac (a964d5)

  25. “It’s been used to unprecedented levels lately.”

    Evidence please.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  26. Robert N – The portion of the admin directly related to government administered programs related to loss reimbursements would most likely be buried in and insurers LAE or Loss Adjusting Expense Ratio, which varies by insurer. Depending on the nature of the other compliance type reporting it could also be buried in the Expense Ratio. It dependes on the nature of the expense so it’s not easy to make a blanket statement.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  27. daleyrocks – I understand that the actual figures would be hard to demonstrate. However, any competent hospital administrator or physician’s office/business manager should be able to provide some reasonable and reliable estimate. At least those people I met nearly 30 years ago could; and if they are unable to do so today that – in itself – demonstrates the problem.

    Robert N. (0e0d35)

  28. Imdw

    Actually I 100% agree that I would prefer for there to be an actual filibuster. What is subtracted from this is the actual endurance test. I say if you are going to filibuster, get up there and start yabbering. Even as I am absolutely tickled at the thought of a filibuster of this, I do want it to include actual talking, not just a filibuster on paper.

    Just let me know when it will happen so I can get some popcorn ready.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  29. As one of those “less than 1%”, if Ben wants to keep his job he will vote no. Its likely some of us will forgive him if it doesn’t pass but if it does we wont forget his cloture vote and hell be out at the Turkey farm for his last days. Hopefully. A lot of Omahans fell for the hope and change nonsense enough to give Barry one of our electoral votes. Hopefully the NE GOP can find someone worth a shit to run against him.

    Dopey (a812c5)

  30. “Oh, yeah, you’re gonna close Strategic Command Headquarters. Right. Gotcha.”

    mojo (8096f2)

  31. Mojo, Obama and company ALWAYS wanted to close SAC. Now, they have political cover for doing so.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  32. ““It’s been used to unprecedented levels lately.”

    Evidence please.”

    In graphical form:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cloture_Voting,_U.S._Senate,_1947_to_2008.jpg

    And in tabular form:

    http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

    imdw (e50e0f)

  33. this is all part of making it so that 60 votes on the merits are needed to do anything in the senate. That’s a relatively new idea

    It is a relatively new idea which was brought to us by the Democratic Party in the Senate, to the cheers of people such as yourself as the Dems filibustered everything they could for several years.

    You can’t help being stupid, I know, but you don’t have to be dishonest. You just choose to be.

    Subotai (5c34ed)

  34. imdw

    well, and i am sure none of that has to do with the massive increase in the size of the federal government, right?

    personally i don’t particularly care how often it is used. unprecedented levels or not, that is a matter of degree and not kind. by comparison filibustering judges was a difference in kind.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  35. I was lukewarm to that idea and would have been ok with ending the filibuster then. Now I totally see how worthwhile it would have been. We’d have better health reform, better union legislation, and in exchange for what?

    There is nothing “better” about the legislation the Dems wish to pass on health reform or union legislation, and even many Dems have admitted as much.

    If the Dems tried to pass a bill scraping the Bill of Rights you’d be right there cheering them on. There is literally nothing the Dems can do that’d you’d oppose .

    Subotai (5c34ed)

  36. “If the Dems tried to pass a bill scraping the Bill of Rights you’d be right there cheering them on. There is literally nothing the Dems can do that’d you’d oppose .”

    I’m opposing them right now!

    imdw (1635c7)

  37. I’m opposing them right now!

    What are they doing that you’re opposing? Failing to scrap the filibuster? Failing to outlaw the Republican Party? Failing to make Obama Leader For Life?

    if you had bothered to look at you own data, you’d have seen that the year ending next month has seen the fewest filibusters in a decade.

    Subotai (5c34ed)

  38. “What are they doing that you’re opposing? Failing to scrap the filibuster? ”

    Messing up on healthcare.

    “if you had bothered to look at you own data, you’d have seen that the year ending next month has seen the fewest filibusters in a decade.”

    You noticed that the data is not by year but by congress right? We’re not even halfway through the 111th congress.

    imdw (bb8086)

  39. imdw

    oh, gee, let me guess. you wish the health care bill was an even bigger piece of crap than it already was.

    Btw, let me ask you a question. do you think that the insurance companies can afford all of the new regulations without the mandate forcing people to buy insurance. yes or no?

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  40. We’re not even halfway through the 111th congress.

    We’re more than half way through. Look at your own data. For instance, “From January 4, 2005 through December 9, 2006, 68 cloture motions were filed”. Or, “From January 4, 2007 through January 2, 2009, 139 cloture motions were filed.”

    You do read up on this stuff before you shoot your mouth off about it, right? A Congressional year runs from January to January.

    Messing up on healthcare.

    As an American, I’d hate to see this disaster of a bill pass. It will make us all poorer and less healthy.

    As a Republican, I hope it does pass. It will make us Republicans a lot more popular with the public and give us back control of Congress.

    Whatever happens, you’re going to lose. You’re just too dimwitted to understand that.

    Subotai (5c34ed)

  41. Dopy, you were perhaps thinking of a “fiscal year”, which ends sometime in the summer.

    You might want to learn some of this basic stuff if you want to talk politics with people and not be laughed at.

    Subotai (5c34ed)

  42. “You do read up on this stuff before you shoot your mouth off about it, right? A Congressional year runs from January to January.”

    Read what you quoted. A congress runs for 2 years from january of an odd year to january of the next odd year — this is because congressional elections are every 2 years. We’re not even done with the first year of the 2 years that comprise the 111th congress.

    “oh, gee, let me guess. you wish the health care bill was an even bigger piece of crap than it already was.”

    Of course not. I think it does keep getting worse though.

    “Btw, let me ask you a question. do you think that the insurance companies can afford all of the new regulations without the mandate forcing people to buy insurance. yes or no?”

    I think the mandate or something like it has to go hand in hand with the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions.

    “Dopy, you were perhaps thinking of a “fiscal year”, which ends sometime in the summer. ”

    I’m thinking of a congress. As in “we are currently in the 111th congress.” As in the table I linked you to was by congress and had a 2 year period for each congress.

    “You might want to learn some of this basic stuff if you want to talk politics with people and not be laughed at.”

    lol

    imdw (3ca605)

  43. imdw

    > I think the mandate or something like it has to go hand in hand with the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions.

    Okay, then this bill needs to be killed. why? becuase the mandate is dead letter. it won’t survive. Read Art 1, Section 2 of the constitution. All direct taxes have to be apportioned among the states. that means if you tax a person (as opposed to duties, tarriffs and excises), then you have to send the bill to the states, not the individual. Further, Art. 1, Section 9 says that such taxes have to be strictly by population. So taxing a person 1) individually, 2) based on whether they own insurance, is specifically forbidden by the constitution.

    Indeed, the income tax would be unconstitutional, if it was not for the 16th amendment, which specifically exempts that tax from those requirements. the supreme court has in the past struck down income taxes percisely on this logic.

    so the mandate is a dead letter. and by your own admisssion, that means that the insurance industry becomes unprofitable. so a vote for this bill is for the end of private insurance. gee, seems like a bad idea, one that you should go to the mat to stop, maybe even filibuster…

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  44. and that might explain why nelson and lieberman are opposed to it. yeah, yeah, you could cynically say, “they come from states with lots of insurance insterests”–the implication being that they are corrupt.

    Or maybe that means the two men know something about the industry and know that gee, maybe its a bad idea to destroy an entire industry in the middle of a recession.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  45. “so the mandate is a dead letter. and by your own admisssion, that means that the insurance industry becomes unprofitable.”

    I don’t think it necessarily means they will be unprofitable — they’ll just charge ridiculous amounts. But I do think that is unworkable.

    “Okay, then this bill needs to be killed. why? becuase the mandate is dead letter. it won’t survive. Read Art 1, Section 2 of the constitution. All direct taxes have to be apportioned among the states. that means if you tax a person (as opposed to duties, tarriffs and excises), then you have to send the bill to the states, not the individual.”

    My understanding was the mandate was created (or can be created) as an income tax, which the 16th amendment allows without the apportionment. Even if not a tax, the mandate could just be seen as necessary and proper for the imposition of the pre-existing condition rule. Which is itself a regulation of interstate commerce.

    imdw (b1ef4c)

  46. We now await subotai with his lols for telling people to “learn some of this basic stuff if you want to talk politics with people and not be laughed at”

    imdw (b1ef4c)

  47. “…My understanding…”

    Now that is funny.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  48. imdw

    nope, its just a tax on existance. thus unconstitutional.

    Of course maybe in all his secret rewritings, harry reid has realized this problem exists and fixed it. but don’t hold your breath.

    And exit question. given that it will destroy private insurance, do the dems see this as a bug or a feature?

    A.W. (b1db52)

  49. #

    There are several people that can vote no but allow cloture. That’s about it. The GOP can lie and say those people voted for health reform though.

    Yeah it’s a lie to say that you voted for Obamacare when you voted yes on the cloture vote that ensured its passage but no on the meaningless bare majority vote afterward.

    Cloture vote fails = no Obamacare
    Cloture vote succeeds = Obamacare

    So, how is it a lie, again, to say that to vote yes on cloture but no on the bill = you voted yes? You knew full well that voting yes on cloture means that the bill will pass regardless of how you voted on the bill itself.

    That’s a bad attempt at lying on your part imdw you should do better.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  50. AW, what if they democrats want this health care bill to be struck down? Then they get the credit from the left for getting something done, while not taking the blame from everyone else when grandma is denied a hip replacement, or your brother can’t afford more insurance and has financial problems.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  51. chaos, that is an excellent observation that people need to remember. Cloture means something, and there simply has not been enough debate or scrutiny on this bill for anyone to end debate.

    They want this to start in 2014, so what’s the rush? We can talk it out, but all those darn polls are showing the people are waking up and time is running out. So anyone voting on cloture is trying to hide from the people and end debate of a controversial, even unpopular action.

    I hope the rest of the country holds their senator up to your standard.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  52. Dustin

    The problem is that by the doctrine of severibility, the most likely outcome is that only the mandate will be struck down. in other words all the regulations that increase the costs are there, but the mandate designed to help pay for them is gone.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  53. Dustin good point about this.

    officially cloture is about debate. And if the issue is about whether it is time to stop talking about this and then cloture seems ill-advised. but in some sense that is antiquated. the debate is out here, among the people. people like me and imdw presenting our arguments, jousting verbally, to see who has the better position.

    But the times when debate in congress actually convinces anyone of anything is gone. they could all be speaking esperanto, and it would have just about as much effect.

    A.W. (e7d72e)

  54. AW, of course, you’re right in the sense of these men talking to eachother and trying to sway eachother in the Senate chambers. That’s vanishingly rare. Probably cartoonish.

    but certainly, this debate is occurring, people are changing their minds, and Senators are feeling the pressure from competing views. And ending cloture while that’s still going on is meant to get this thing through while the debate is ongoing.

    Either this bill is 1) very popular, and cloture is a trick to keep it from being passed, or 2) it’s middling, and cloture is a trick to keep the debate from its most valuable point in time, or 3) it’s unpopular, and no cloture is an attempt to do something undemocratic as far from election day as possible.

    I think we’re 3), but maybe we’re in 2), and we obviously are not in 1).

    The debate is a real thing today. that’s why it’s so hard to pass this bill. They know it’s going to be a disaster that can’t be undone, and the more we discuss it the harder it gets to pull it off.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  55. “nope, its just a tax on existance. thus unconstitutional.”

    When i read the house bill, it was a tax on incomes. I haven’t read the senate version. If it’s not done that way, it should — that’s a better way to do it.

    “So, how is it a lie, again, to say that to vote yes on cloture but no on the bill = you voted yes? You knew full well that voting yes on cloture means that the bill will pass regardless of how you voted on the bill itself.”

    Like I said, there’s lots of tantrums that can be thrown. Are the democrats against health reform because they don’t invoke the ‘nuclear option’? Nah.

    imdw (c5488f)

  56. “.. there’s lots of tantrums that can be thrown…”

    Oh, my yes. I think we will be seeing a lot of that passive-aggressive approach from you!

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  57. “…I haven’t read the senate version…”

    Neither has anyone else, since it still doesn’t exist except as an ephemeral spectre.

    AD - RtR/OS! (855ace)

  58. Speaking of “passive-aggressive”, where is the lovey-one?

    AD - RtR/OS! (855ace)

  59. Like I said, there’s lots of tantrums that can be thrown. Are the democrats against health reform because they don’t invoke the ‘nuclear option’? Nah.

    That isn’t what you said. You said something different. You’re lying.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  60. imdw, whether voting one way or the other on cloture is OK or not, is up to the voters.

    You say the GOP is “lying” if they tell the voters what happened. Nope. If they are OK with him standing aside and letting this bill pass, then he wouldn’t be in this situation.

    furthermore, this bill needs more and more and more debate until they figure out a way to reform healthcare in a bankrupt nation. It can be done, and it isn’t there yet, so voting no on cloture is the right thing to do.

    Dustin (44f8cb)

  61. “Where you around back when dubya was trying to get his judges confirmed and asking for a “up or down vote” ? What did you think about this topic back then? Who’s up for an “up or down vote” on health reform? Matter of fact, who’s up for an “up or down vote” on another stimulus or the Employee Free Choice Act?”

    Well where were YOU? Were you out there screaming that filibusters were wrong? Did you shout up and down that it was wrong for Firelodgegate to call Lieberman “Rape Gurney Joe” because he voted on cloture for the nomination of Alito to the US Supreme Court? You show your 100% consistent bona fides and I’ll show you mine.

    In the meantime I’m going to go on calling any potential vote for cloture by Nelson or Landreaux or Lincoln or Baucus a vote on the final bill, and you can take you complaint that I’m being inconsistent and shove it.

    Sean P (4e8ea3)

  62. “Well where were YOU? Were you out there screaming that filibusters were wrong? Did you shout up and down that it was wrong for Firelodgegate to call Lieberman “Rape Gurney Joe” because he voted on cloture for the nomination of Alito to the US Supreme Court?”

    I was thinking through whether it was worth it to give up the filibuster, and sort of not caring which way it went down. And now I realize I should have wanted the filibuster weakened. Not that it would have mattered.

    imdw (7cc81b)

  63. OK, that’s an honest answer. I myself thought the filibuster debate got overheated, but hardly see why the GOP shouldn’t use the only option it has.

    Here’s the thing: If Nelson thought a no vote on the final bill would protect him from voting yes on cloture we’d already have the health care bill.

    Sean P (4e8ea3)

  64. Webb let an aide take the fall for a gun problem…he really is a weakling. Nelson is a dem, dems kill the unborn, does that clear everything up?

    J (2946f2)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0922 secs.