Sign Of Life

Someone help me set up an ActBlue page and someone else help me figure out how to set up a petition for a new Speaker. This is how we win.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) released a statement today in which, broadly speaking, he endorses passing the Senate bill along with a separate amending bill which would pass the senate through reconciliation and passing yet another bill which would pass other popular reforms later in the year.

Follow the link to read the whole statement.

Jerry Nadler would make an excellent candidate to lead the House. The guy has balls and a knack for getting the message right.

***Update***

Don’t get me wrong about Pelosi. She managed the caucus well enough, up until that minor Chernobyl incident three days ago. When we say that nobody thought about what to do if Coakley lost ‘nobody’ means Pelosi, Reid and Barack Obama. That shit won’t fly. My vote goes to any Democrat who rescues this miasmatic tailspin.

***Update 2***

The more I read about Jerry Nadler the more I like the guy.

***Update 3***

ATTENTION: The Pelosi stuff is obviously a distraction, so forget that I ever said it. Take it as a sign of how hungry I am right now to see someone take ownership of a concrete plan to move the ball those last five yards into the endzone.

***Update 4***

I just spoke with Nadler’s office. Josh Marshall interpreted his statement right the first time. The plan would package passing the Senate bill with a promise from the Senate to fix some things through reconciliation. That strikes me, emphatically, as the way to go.

Now it’s nap time.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

172 replies
  1. 1
    Spiffy McBang says:

    Didn’t John set one up a little while back? I’d think he would know.

  2. 2
    AxelFoley says:

    If you said a new Leader of the Senate, I could get with that.

    But a new Speaker of the House? Nah, Nancy’s my boo. She got shit done, so I don’t agree on the need for a new Speaker.

  3. 3
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    Someone help me set up an ActBlue page and someone else help me figure out how to set up a petition for a new Speaker.

    Jeebus Tim, I’m with ya on raising hell and all, but canning Pelosi over this is too much. She is not to blame in any way. Just my opinion.

    edit- Nadler or whoever else would still have to deal with blue dogs and at times like now, House libs.

  4. 4
    Alien-Radio says:

    He also gets coalition building in congress, and understands investing in congressmen, to get what you want further down the line rather than the DLC paradigm.

  5. 5
    Lev says:

    Nadler had me worried for a moment, but I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s a smart guy who gets it. I usually don’t hear him mentioned as a rising star for the Democrats (it’s usually exciting, exciting folks like Mark Warner), but he probably should be.

  6. 6
    John Cole says:

    I set one up and added Nadler. Will post it after I take a nap. F-ing shoulder pain.

  7. 7
    Tractarian says:

    Here’s an addition to the BJ whip count:

    I just called Rep. Hinojosa (TX-15)… his staffer says he hasn’t made a decision on the Senate bill yet.

    Chalk another one up for “meh”…..

  8. 8
    policomic says:

    Let’s call Nadler’s office to thank him, and express our support: 202-225-5635.

  9. 9
    FoxinSocks says:

    BTW-An update on Rep. Donna Edwards – MD for the spreadsheet. After getting the run around, I specifically asked her office once again what her stand was on the Senate bill. I could not get an answer.

  10. 10
    Bruuuuce says:

    Too bad Nadler doesn’t want to surrender his seniority in the House for the junior Senate seat in NY. He’d be a GREAT Senator — light-years beyond Gillibrand!

  11. 11
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    The guy has balls

    So the plan is to get the Dems a set of ‘nads, one Nad at a time?

  12. 12
    Brick Oven Bill says:

    With regards to health, Jerry could be a beacon of hope for the American people. It would be good to see a debate on the subject between Jerry and Michael Steele.

  13. 13
    Lev says:

    Man, if Nadler were to start whipping votes for this thing–if he were to be the guy to salvage health care–he’d quickly become a major player in Democratic politics. I guess it’s just a sign of how much the Democrats suck–doesn’t anyone see an opportunity to make something happen and build power and appreciation among progressives? It’s like every House Democrat is perfectly happy just to do whatever they need to do to keep their seats forever.

    I want a Democratic Party full of hungry people. Instead, it’s a party full of, well, full people.

  14. 14
    Tom Hilton says:

    @AxelFoley: yeah, definitely. Pelosi has done a tremendous job so far, and no way is this mess her fault.

  15. 15
    Tractarian says:

    Hold on a sec. Read Nadler’s statement:

    We can then take various popular insurance reforms that cannot be passed through the reconciliation process – dealing with such subjects as pre-existing conditions, rescissions and annual and lifetime benefits – put them in a separate bill, and see if the Republicans dare to filibuster them.

    I don’t understand this. The Senate bill has these reforms (doesn’t it?) so if the House passes the Senate bill, then there would be no need to put them in a separate bill, right?

  16. 16
    beltane says:

    Nadler as Speaker, Schumer as Majority Leader, and a century of bad juju for the accursed Red Sux. New Yawk, New Yawk , it’s a helluva town…

  17. 17
    Cat says:

    @Lev:

    I want a Democratic Party full of hungry people. Instead, it’s a party full of, well, full people.

    Careful what you wish for. Hungry people have been known to eat their own from time to time.

  18. 18
    Lev says:

    @beltane: Hadn’t even thought of that. Serves them right for voting for Brown.

  19. 19
    El Cid says:

    @Cat: A party of people feeling a bit peckish? A party considering a snack, but also capable of putting it off?

  20. 20
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @John Cole: So you and Tim are going full metal of throw em all out over one bill, and vote in Mass that had no plan if dems lost the seat. What plan would that be? You might as well set up an Actblue for Kucinich, Clinton for presnit, or whatever your choice would be. Reid I could get behind, I get that,.

    Never figured the front pagers here for a bunch of spastic Heathers, oh well, live and learn. Carry on.

  21. 21
    Osprey says:

    @Tractarian: I think he’s saying that the house won’t pass HCR in its current form. The Senate would now have to pass what they can through reconciliation (which only allows budgetary items to be put through on the 50+1 vote), and THEN write a new bill that ONLY deals with pre-existing conditions/rescission etc. Put that to a vote and see where it goes. If all the budgetary stuff were to pass, then the separate bill might have a chance of collecting some bi-partisan votes (and some of the Repubs might jump on board and say “well, we voted for the GOOD parts of HCR, just like we wanted”. Both sides declare victory, and hopefully HCR is continually improved down the road.

    My .02$ guess.

  22. 22
    mcc says:

    If Nancy Pelosi loses her job it probably goes to Steny Hoyer. This isn’t the result you want.

  23. 23

    @Tractarian:

    To say nothing of this being extremely stupid policy.

  24. 24
    mcc says:

    @Osprey: It’s nonsense. You will never, never pass meaningful pre-existing conditions protections without the mandate. Congress won’t even consider the idea, it’s going to treat the two as bundled. So basically we’d be throwing away the good parts of the current bill to keep the terrifying parts.

  25. 25
    mistermix says:

    I think it’s a dangerous fallacy to think that the right caucus leader could whip the bunch of cowards that comprise the House and Senate Democrats into shape.

    Take as one example Eric Massa, NY-29. He’s been against HCR since day 1, because it didn’t include single-payer. He’s got a district full of teabaggers who can’t really take him down because he opposes the bill, yet progressives think he’s fighting the good fight.

    There’s a lot of Eric Massa type behavior in the House caucus. Reps think they can thread a needle that gets them re-elected. And that’s the only goal for most of them. I think it’s a fallacy, but it’s not one that a better Speaker would fix.

  26. 26
    geg6 says:

    @mcc:

    Seriously.

    Not to mention, but punishing Pelosi for this???????? The only fucking party leader to have done any goddam leading at all the last year?????? Seriously?????? You people are fucking losing the damn plot.

    I’d rather we canned Obama than Pelosi.

  27. 27
    plasticgoat says:

    Don’t agree with the talk of ousting Pelosi. Luckily it is not up to us, and the Congressional democrats do not seem to be persuaded much by internet movements. Getting rid of Reid, on the other hand, is a move I would support.

  28. 28

    Whoa hey, let’s not jump all over poor Pelosi yet; she’s done pretty well with the shitty hand she’s been dealt. Granted, this “Brownie who?” thing seems kinda inexcusable, but lord knows there’s blame enough to go around.

  29. 29
    RSR says:

    I’m a little concerned about exactly what Nadler is saying. Is he suggesting a ‘start-over’ approach, with budgetary items done via reconcilliation and other parts through a new bill? I don’t know if I trust either side or either house to do what needs to be done to make that scenario happen.

  30. 30
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @geg6:

    I’d rather we canned Obama than Pelosi.

    Yea, that would be better. Idiot.

  31. 31
    Tractarian says:

    @Osprey:

    It still doesn’t make any sense. Nadler says the House should pass the Senate bill as long as there is an agreement on some reconciliation-based changes, right? But those changes can’t be related to the insurance regulations (due to the nature of reconciliation), so those regulations will stay in effect. If that is so, there is no need to put the regulations in a later bill.

    What am I missing here? Either Nadler is making no sense or JMM and Tim have just misunderstood him. Either way, this isn’t the sign of life we’ve been hoping for.

  32. 32
    David says:

    @geg6: All that leading this past year won’t matter one whit if she can’t get 50% + 1. There will be other bills and opportunities for the House to get better deals during reconciliation, on items that are going to pass regardless. This isn’t one of those times.

  33. 33
    The Moar You Know says:

    If Nancy Pelosi loses her job it probably goes to Steny Hoyer.

    @mcc: No “probably” about it, that’s how it works. And yeah, that’s a result I REALLY do not want.

  34. 34
    Tractarian says:

    @RSR:

    I’m beginning to think Nadler’s statement was intentionally ambiguous.

    In other words, it’s another big fat “MEH!”

  35. 35
    Mary says:

    No, no and no. No. Running a petition or an Act Blue fund to replace Pelosi with Nadler is FDL-levels of stupid. Don’t do it.

    I agree with geg6. You guys are losing the plot.

    I’m starting to think that we’ve been struck by a terrorist attack that put bad drugs in the water. Everyone has gone crazy.

  36. 36
    sy2d says:

    Van Hollen: Senate Bill’s Brand May Be Irrevocably Tarnished, So We May Go Reconciliation Instead

    In a candid assessment of the politics of health care, DCCC chief Chris Van Hollen said in an interview that the Senate bill’s brand may be irrevocably tarnished, particularly among independents — and confirmed that partly for this reason, Dem leaders may pass a new set of reforms via reconciliation, which could be repackaged free of the Senate bill’s taint.

    Van Hollen also added that it would be a mistake for Dems to pretend the unpopularity of the Senate reform proposals wasn’t a factor in the Massachusetts loss.

    Van Hollen’s comments provide perhaps the clearest glimpse yet into the thinking of Dem leaders and the options they’re considering, and illustrate why they may be reluctant for the House to pass the Senate bill, as some want.

    “Because of provisions like the Nebraska deal, the Senate bill has been branded in a way that understandably makes it unacceptable in its current form to many voters, especially independents,” Van Hollen told me, adding that Senator Ben Nelson has acknowledged this provision is problematic and must be changed.

    He said this was a lesson of Tuesday’s loss: “The Massachusetts election turned on lots of factors. One factor was health care reform,” he said, referring to the Senate bill.

    Van Hollen stressed that all options remain on the table, including the House passing the Senate bill with significant legislative changes. But he said the Senate bill’s image problems had led Dem leaders to give serious consideration to assembling a new package and passing it through reconciliation.

    “One option would be to pick up where we were in the House and Senate negotiations and work to incorporate those agreements into some legislative package,” Van Hollen said. “It would have to move through what we are calling the majority rule procedure in the Senate. The provisions that had been agreed to between the House and Senate would be able to survive that process.”

    “We would focus on essential elements in the health care package that have wide public support,” he said. Among them: Creating more competition and more consumer choice; taking away special deals for the insurance industry, like the antitrust exemption; and “making sure that insurance companies couldn’t deny you coverage at the time you need it the most.”

    These provisions “have gotten lost in the public discussion,” Van Hollen said, adding that repackaging the proposals would let Dems “make it clear that this is a different bill.”

  37. 37
    cfaller96 says:

    If you’re going to devote time, money, and energy to replacing the leader of a Congressional institution, Nancy Pelosi is the wrong one. I will stipulate that Nancy Pelosi makes mistakes, but Harry Reid has been a much bigger failure. He is terrible. Regardless, I’m expecting Senator Reid to be ousted by his own constituents this fall, so this may not need action on our part. His numbers, they are not good.

    I don’t know who would be a viable candidate for the job instead of Reid. I don’t even know how one would be able to get the job to begin with. Is it a combination of seniority plus willingness to dole out favors?

    Durbin? Kerry? Conrad? These are wild-assed guesses.

  38. 38
    Bobby Thomson says:

    @Tractarian:

    Nadler says the House should pass the Senate bill as long as there is an agreement on some reconciliation-based changes, right? But those changes can’t be related to the insurance regulations (due to the nature of reconciliation), so those regulations will stay in effect. If that is so, there is no need to put the regulations in a later bill.

    Correct. At least someone is moving in the right direction, though.

    I think this is what happens when they have all these members-only meetings. Nobody in the room actually knows what (s)he’s talking about without her/his staff. But he’s got the basic outline of it right.

  39. 39
    geg6 says:

    @General Winfield Stuck:

    Go fuck yourself, asshole. You are too stupid to live. And I’ll thank you to ignore me from now on, just as I plan to do with you.

    @David:

    So we punish her for attempting to do her job as best she can while doing nothing about Reid and Obama.

    Yup. People here have seriously lost the plot.

  40. 40
    HumboldtBlue says:

    When we say that nobody thought about what to do if Coakley lost ‘nobody’ means Pelosi, Reid and Barack Obama.

    Where did this magical talking point come from? What fucking plan were they supposed to have? You honestly think that people who rely on getting elected to keep their jobs just said “fuck it, we’re gonna win” and then …. what?

    You’d still have Harri Reid talking about collegiality and how they must honor the sacred working of the Senate. In other words, we’d still have shit bag of a Senate bill, but because one seat changed hands the entire Democratic leadership was thrown for a loop? Do you have any evidence of this at all other than the ramblings of talking heads on TV?

    What if Coakley had won, what would have changed about the shitty Senate bill and how would that have made on iota of difference on what the House is going to do? Would Democrats in Congress who rightfully oppose some of the more odious provisions in the bill like this …

    He said that there’s been a lot of discussion on how the Congressional Budget Office scored this legislation and what it says this legislation will cost the country in the long run, but little to no focus on how the legislation will directly impact individual Americans.

    Potter pointed out, for example, that many plans — even after consumers received proposed government subsidies to help pay for them — would come with high deductibles that prohibit people from using their insurance or cause them the kind of financial hardships that healthcare reform was purported to prevent.

    “What worries me,” he said, “is people who are forced to buy coverage and all they can afford to buy is a high deductible. And if they get really sick then they have to pay so much out of their own pockets that they’re going to be filing for bankruptcy and losing their homes.”

    In the Senate bill, in particular, Potter noted, some people will be buying insurance that will only cover roughly 60 percent of their medical costs if they get sick.

    “There are a lot of people who don’t have insurance now because they can’t afford premiums,” he said. “They certainly couldn’t afford premiums plus the out-of-pocket expenses in today’s market.”

    How the fuck is this Pelosi’s fault and where is the evidence that they have no plan to move forward or that somehow Brown’s election suddenly ends legislation forever? It was a shit bill in the first place and congressman and women rightfully pointed out how fucked up it is, but Pelosi’s supposed to have the all lined up singing kumbaya ready to pass it through the house?

    This shit makes no sense whatsoever.

  41. 41
    beltane says:

    @Mary: Pelosi is the only one who’s been halfway decent through all this. And as someone pointed out above, her replacement would be the atrocious Stenny Hoyer, not Nadler.

    Reid is the one who has to go. This seeds for this failure were planted in the Senate six months ago.

  42. 42
    jibeaux says:

    @Tractarian:

    I don’t quite understand his point there, either, and I’m not signing any petition for a new speaker. But I appreciate the effort to somehow reward someone that these feckless representatives can line up behind. Maybe if we give a pellet to the mouse who sticks his neck out the other mice will come get in line for a pellet. I have called and faxed letters to my reps, but at some point this thing has to COALESCE.

  43. 43
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @geg6:

    You are too stupid to live

    LOL you could be right, though I won’t be ignoring idiot remarks. I will respond when called for.

  44. 44
    Tractarian says:

    @Bobby Thomson:

    I actually don’t think it is moving in the right direction, though. The more I look at the statement, the more I think that he’s taking the “start over” approach. He actually doesn’t say anywhere that the House should take up the Senate bill. He says

    We must instead negotiate an agreement with the Senate to pass a few key changes to the Senate bill through the reconciliation process so that both Houses can pass a comprehensive bill.

    Keep in mind, this was a press release, not an off-the-cuff remark. So you have to assume he (and his staff) chose the words carefully.

  45. 45
    Lisa K. says:

    @Mary:

    No, no and no. No. Running a petition or an Act Blue fund to replace Pelosi with Nadler is FDL-levels of stupid. Don’t do it.

    This, for sure. Step back from the ledge.

  46. 46
    Lev says:

    @beltane: I agree that Reid has to go, but his successor isn’t going to be able to be effective unless the caucus decides to give him some tools to work with. Schumer would be a good choice, but it would only work if he could get the caucus to give him the ability to yank chairmanships and seniority if people start misbehaving.

    And I am not terribly optimistic that that will happen.

  47. 47
    RSR says:

    @Tractarian: I don’t think it’s being interpreted correctly. He pretty much says the current bill won’t do, let’s get some new ones.

  48. 48
    Tim (The Oher One) says:

    You two should get a room. This is beneath BJ standards.

  49. 49
    Mary says:

    @HumboldtBlue: There is just one thing wrong with your argument. Wendell Potter is in favor of the Senate bill, since it’s come to that.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....03176.html

  50. 50
    Lisa K. says:

    @beltane:

    Nadler as Speaker, Schumer as Majority Leader, and a century of bad juju for the accursed Red Sux. New Yawk, New Yawk , it’s a helluva town…

    Anybody who uses the immature term Red Sux is nothing better than the worst teabagger, no matter who they voted for.

  51. 51
    David says:

    Looks like the unions are on board with “pass the bill” as well.

    I’ve probably not been very clear on the Pelosi bit. She’s done a fine job so far, but definitely has it easier only needing 50% + 1 to pass bills and having a larger majority. For the House to drop this now and refuse to pass the Senate bill b/c they aren’t getting everything they want is unforgivable. For all House leadership and members, not just her. The Coakley election loss changed things in the Senate, and there’s no going back for more negotiations unfortunately.

  52. 52
    Cat says:

    @Mary:

    I’m starting to think that we’ve been struck by a terrorist attack that put bad drugs in the water. Everyone has gone crazy.

    Or its the kinda crazy people get when faced with trying to resolve some cognitive dissonance.

    nom nom nom.

  53. 53
    Napoleon says:

    I didn’t read that Nadler statement nearly as positively as some. The fact that he is talking about introducing a new bill that breaks off some of the items is quite frankly delusional.

  54. 54
    kay says:

    @Tractarian:

    I think what he’s saying is this:
    1. changes on the Senate bill though reconciliation (excise tax).
    Now they have a comprehensive bill both Houses can pass. It’s tee’d up.
    2. Pull out popular insurance regs, force Republicans to vote against them
    3. Now pass comprehensive bill, after forcing Republicans to vote “no” on popular measures.
    I think it’s a fine plan.

  55. 55
    Lev says:

    This seems unequivocal:

    We must instead negotiate an agreement with the Senate to pass a few key changes to the Senate bill through the reconciliation process so that both Houses can pass a comprehensive bill.

    Key word: comprehensive. Not piecemeal. Plus, this:

    The alternatives – giving up on comprehensive reform or attempting to only pass small pieces separately – are either unacceptable or impractical.

    Nadler’s statement is a little confusing, but I think it’s been interpreted correctly.

  56. 56
    Tractarian says:

    I don’t think it’s being interpreted correctly. He pretty much says the current bill won’t do, let’s get some new ones.

    Tim, can you respond to this? Read the statement carefully — he’s not advocating taking up the Senate bill and resolving differences through reconciliation. He’s advocating trashing everything, starting over, passing what can be passed through reconciliation, then doing the regulations in a separate bill.

    That’s no sign of life, that’s a sign of incredible naivete. It’s time to seriously roll back your enthusiasm for Nadler.

  57. 57
    beltane says:

    @Lev: The caucus is behaving like a volunteer fire department that is more concerned with planning its annual barbecue than with putting out fires.

  58. 58
    kay says:

    I think Pelosi is very good at her job, incidentally.

    Replacing her is insane.

  59. 59
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    Take it as a sign of how hungry I am right now to see someone take ownership of a concrete plan to move the ball those last five yards into the endzone.

    , I do understand this, consider it forgotten by me. :-)

  60. 60
    HumboldtBlue says:

    @Mary:

    I understand that Mary, he’s in favor of passing it because it’s the only path to improving it, hell, even my dumb ass has had that pounded through my thick skull. But the idea that Pelosi has somehow failed here is absurd, at least in light of what I presume to be the argument outlined above. Again, it doesn’t make any sense. Brown’s win didn’t change a damn thing other than give Senate Dems a reason to cower and bleat on about how they can’t override a filibuster.

  61. 61
    Tractarian says:

    @kay:

    OK, I follow you, but it still doesn’t make sense. Republicans have already voted against the regulations. Why make them vote again? More important, why subject yourself to a certain filibuster?

    @Lev:

    Right, he doesn’t want to “give up”, he doesn’t want to do “piecemeal”, he wants to start from scratch. Who does he think will provide the 60th senate vote for this “comprehensive” bill?

  62. 62
    mbuchel says:

    I just called George Miller’s (CA-7th) office and got a definite yes – he will vote for the Senate health care bill if it comes before the house. The staffer I talked to said he is (paraphrasing) working hard to pass that bill through the House.
    As he’s extremely close to Pelosi, I’ve got to believe this is what she wants. It’s a matter of whether the leadership can get the votes.

  63. 63
    Lev says:

    @Tractarian: He’s talking about making changes to the Senate bill through reconciliation. That is not compatible with trashing everything and “starting over”.

  64. 64
    Tractarian says:

    @mbuchel:

    Now there’s a sign of life.

    ActBlue for Miller, not Nadler. Not yet, anyway.

  65. 65

    @beltane:

    You know what would be cool? If, just once, someone would tell me what they want the Senate Majority Leader to do differently that doesn’t involve stuff they have no authority to do and/or won’t help them any.

  66. 66
    Emerald says:

    Hi folks! I’m a refugee from DKos looking for a more reasonable home. Lotsa folks recommend Balloon Juice, so here I am.

    Having said that, I must disagree in my first comment. Pelosi has done an amazing job. Right now things are in flux. They did have a Plan B just in case Brown won, but when Brown actually won, congresscritters began acting like congresscritters and are scampering all over their cages.

    Obama was right. Let the dust settle a bit. Doing anything major right now would be political malpractice. The critters have to calm down first. More and more people are calling for the ping-pong plus a sidecar reconciliation package: Krugman, the health care experts they’ve been working with. Eventually, that’s what they’ll do, although not till at least after the SOTU, werein leadership will occur.

    Anyone who saw Obama’s town hall today knows he’s staying in this battle. He brought it up three times, spending lots of time on it. Hang tough. Nancy knows what she’s doing.

  67. 67
    Mary says:

    @mbuchel: George Miller and Nancy Pelosi are best friends. Miller’s statement would be the closest to Pelosi’s position. This is good news.

  68. 68
    Chad S says:

    Nadler is a distant cousin of mine. Always a nice guy at family get togethers in NYC. Good for him.

  69. 69
    freelancer says:

    Oh, Hello there Balloon Juicers!

    I just stopped by to see if John Cole had any pictures of Lilly or if DougJ had posted his weekly fisking of Broder or Brooks.

    Wait, what’s that you say?

    Really?

    “Meh”, are you sure?

    And you’re definitely being serious. This isn’t snark?

    FUCK.

    That bad?

    Jesus.

    But what about-

    Really? They’re really talking about that, but that didn’t work the first time, what would make them-

    Christ.

    Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh!

  70. 70
    Tractarian says:

    @Lev:

    I hope you’re right. I hope Nadler is really advocating passing the Senate bill then working out differences in reconciliation.

    The question I have for you is this: why would Nadler talk about passing insurance regulations–which are already part of the Senate bill–in a subsequent bill?

    The only reason I can think of is that he actually doesn’t want the house to pass the Senate bill, he wants to come up with new ones — in other words, starting over.

  71. 71
    Mary says:

    Act Blue for an ad with mugshot pictures of those who won’t pass the Senate bill and will consign 45,000 Americans a year to their deaths. And throw in Jane Hamsher for good measure. You’ll rake in the bucks.

  72. 72
    HumboldtBlue says:

    How about forcing the Republicans to do an actual filibuster and then slam the whole time they are grandstanding? Would that work, Brien? Or is the fact that 40 Senators who represent one-third of the populace are allowed to scuttle any popular legislation cool with you?

  73. 73
    kay says:

    @Tractarian:

    I think the GOP should have to vote against the insurance regs, actually. They have said over and over they are ready to regulate health insurance. That’s a crock of shit. When’s the last time the GOP regulated anything? Give me a break.

    If they pull out the popular regulatory parts, put that up to a vote, and it fails, they then have the comprehensive bill tee’d up.

    That’s beautiful. They can then say “we passed the comprehensive bill with the insurance regs when Republicans voted against the people and for insurance companies”.

    If the regs bill passes, it doesn’t matter. They then pass the rest of the bill, it’s all ready to go, and nothing duplicative is going to stay in there.

    I looked at his statement a couple of times, as you did. It’s my take, but yours is probably equally likely. I just like mine.

  74. 74
    kindness says:

    Spastic Heathers….Man, that is funny.

    Don’t go all Glenn Beck on this. The whole thing is hard enough on everyone so as to make it worse.

    Nancy is da bomb. She’s run her side and made us proud (well other than coathanger Stupack).

  75. 75
    geg6 says:

    @mbuchel:

    Now this sounds like something we can work with. Miller and Pelosi are very close. So I must assume that this is what she wants. And if he’s saying it somewhere where the rest of the caucus can hear it, this is the first sign of leadership I’ve seen. I have certainly not seen or heard anything from the Senate or White House that could be called any sort of leadership. And to think I read this in a thread calling for her ouster.

  76. 76
    Tractarian says:

    @Brien Jackson:

    You know what would be cool? If, just once, someone would tell me what they want the Senate Majority Leader to do differently that doesn’t involve stuff they have no authority to do and/or won’t help them any.

    Easy.

    Press your members HARD to support the Senate bill.

    Explain to them that you have two options at this point: (1) pass the Senate HCR bill, or (2) pass no HCR bill (because with 41 votes in the Senate, the GOP won’t allow any other HCR bill through).

    Under option (1), you can potentially fix some problems through reconciliation later and you can campaign on an (imperfect) achievement. Under option (2), you get a historic mega-landslide for the GOP in November.

  77. 77
    Fitzwili says:

    I have to say it is not in our best interest to gank Pelosi- she has really done her best and to say that she deserves blame for this senate catastophe goes to far- talk about self inflicted wounds.
    However, an Act Up account that rewards good HCR behavior IS a good idea!
    I called Congressman Nadler’s office to tell him I approve and to discuss the abysmal lack of resolve of the House- the staffer was very nice and did not care that I was not a constituent – I think they are trying to het a bigger picture of Dem. reaction- if you think Nadler has a good idea – call his office and tell him so .
    Congresswoman Nadia Velasquez could use some nudging I think- call her as well as Jackie Speirs.

  78. 78

    How about forcing the Republicans to do an actual filibuster and then slam the whole time they are grandstanding? Would that work, Brien?

    No, it wouldn’t. Because as a lot of people have covered a lot of times, the real Senate doesn’t work like a movie. “Making them filibuster” is one of those things you can’t actually do in the real world.

  79. 79
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @Mary: Now that I can get behind. But we need a final vote of a reconciled, or fixed bill. To flush the varmints out into the light of day.

    Though I have no hope that Reid would do it, being the mannered fool he has become.

  80. 80
    The Raven says:

    This is similar to McDermott’s (D-WA-07) position as described in his e-mail reply. (McDermott is a long-time single-payer advocate who has compromised.) I believe it is, generally, the left position in the House. I’d thought that the middle position (just pass the Senate bill) and the right position (cower) would be more prevalent in the House, but it may be that the liberals are the only Representatives willing to take stands. On the other hand, that also means they’ll be the first Reps taking fire.

  81. 81
    BruinKid says:

    I talked to a staffer in Rep. Judy Chu’s (D, CA-32) office, and he said Chu was committed to getting reform done, but was unsure what the next step would be. Based on our conversation, I really don’t think Chu would be against voting for the Senate bill if we could get some more stuff done later on through reconciliation. She might even vote for the Senate bill, just to get something done, but ideally we shouldn’t put her in that kind of spot.

  82. 82
    Napoleon says:

    @Tractarian:

    That is how I read what he is saying.

  83. 83
    Tractarian says:

    @kay:

    I like your interpretation too! I just don’t understand it: How is the Senate going to pass ANY bill with 41 Republicans standing in the way? Why would the GOP vote against a regulations bill, then vote FOR a comprehensive bill?

  84. 84
    KCinDC says:

    I’m with Tractarian, and I think Tim needs to take a nap and come back when he’s feeling less insane. Nadler’s statement is incoherent, especially if it’s supposed to be a description of passing the Senate bill and fixing it through reconciliation. There is zero reason to prefer him to Pelosi, and dumping Pelosi would be the path to even greater confusion and despair.

  85. 85
    Mary says:

    @The Raven: Stupak’s crew also goes up on the board.

  86. 86
    KDP says:

    @policomic: I just called Nadler’s office to express my support for his firm stance on making this happen. The very nice women with whom I spoke thanked me and made a point of taking my contact information even thought I was not a constituent.

    Quite a gratifying experience.

  87. 87
    RSR says:

    @Lev: Maybe starting over isn’t the right phrasing. But it looks like he’s suggesting culling parts of the current bill(s?) out, “dealing with such subjects as pre-existing conditions, rescissions and annual and lifetime benefits ,” and hoping to get them back in another bill further down the road.

    Now I’m not 100% sure what’s in which bill, but pulling parts of what we already have out, and trying to get them back separately does not inspire a lot of confidence in me.

  88. 88
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @Mary: Didn’t get read your comment right. But either way, the senate bill as it is that would help a lot of people, or a fixed one, the message is the same, politics got in the way, and they should pay.

  89. 89
    David says:

    @Tractarian:

    Easy. Press your members HARD to support the Senate bill. Explain to them that you have two options at this point: (1) pass the Senate HCR bill, or (2) pass no HCR bill (because with 41 votes in the Senate, the GOP won’t allow any other HCR bill through). Under option (1), you can potentially fix some problems through reconciliation later and you can campaign on an (imperfect) achievement. Under option (2), you get a historic mega-landslide for the GOP in November.

    This.

  90. 90
    jenniebee says:

    @HumboldtBlue: The trouble is, that’s not what a filibuster has to look like, and the Republicans have done their parliamentarian homework (as, notably, did Harry Reid, which is why he hasn’t taken this tack).

    What happens is that the President of the Senate can simply declare that nobody else is talking so a piece of legislation can be moved on for a vote (this is how it works with no cloture vote). Then an obstructing Senator simply raises a point of order questioning whether a quorum is present. At that time, the rules require that the president prove that there is a quorum. As soon as he’s done with that, the obstructing Senator can simply question it again. It doesn’t matter if every single Senator is in the room, it doesn’t matter if all the Senate has done that day is one quorum call after another, there is absolutely no way to stop this question and it is compulsory, when it is asked, to determine that a quorum is present before taking any other action (like a vote) that would require the presence of a quorum.

    Good TV this does not make.

  91. 91
    The Raven says:

    @Mary: Good point. Anti-abortion Democrats are their own faction.

  92. 92
    Waynski says:

    Hurray for Nadler. He’s my Congresscritter.

  93. 93
    RSR says:

    One thing to think about is that the bill as passed by the senate continues to sit there waiting, right? If so, they can certainly try to get other things done separately and if they’re unable just go back to the bill that’s already passed.

    But I’m no parlimentarian, so I could be completely wrong about that, too.

    My concern is if they start tinkering with what is already done, we’ll end up with something weaker than we currently have.

  94. 94
    Napoleon says:

    Check this out from Dionne on what may be going on (and as one who bitches when DougJ links to the WaPo I apologize for the WaPo link):

    http://voices.washingtonpost.c.....ve_th.html

  95. 95
    Tom Hilton says:

    The Pelosi stuff is obviously a distraction, so forget that I ever said it.

    Said what?

  96. 96

    @jenniebee:

    What happens is that the President of the Senate can simply declare that nobody else is talking so a piece of legislation can be moved on for a vote

    No he can’t.

    As soon as he’s done with that, the obstructing Senator can simply question it again.

    No they can’t.

  97. 97
    RSR says:

    FYI: AlanGrayson
    4:43pm, Jan 22 from Web

    Want to know what’s next with health care? I will tell Chris Matthews what I think on Hardball on MSNBC at 5 p.m

  98. 98
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @Tom Hilton: Tim gets carried away sometimes, he means well though.

  99. 99
    KCinDC says:

    @RSR, while it might be entertaining to hear Alan Grayson, I’d rather hear from someone who has some actual power to determine what’s going to happen. That would not include any first-term House members.

  100. 100
    tigrismus says:

    @beltane: Hey, now, he got less than 28% of the registered voters, less than 18% of the population.

  101. 101
    NR says:

    @Tractarian:

    Explain to them that you have two options at this point: (1) pass the Senate HCR bill, or (2) pass no HCR bill (because with 41 votes in the Senate, the GOP won’t allow any other HCR bill through).

    Or how about (3) challenge the paradigm that says that 41 votes in the Senate can block anything and everything that the majority wants to do? George W. Bush never had 60 Senators (or 59, for that matter), and he still got his most important agenda items passed.

    But no, that would make too much sense.

    Anyway, I’m with Congressman Weiner. The only way I can get on board with choice #1 is if the fixes to the Senate bill are passed FIRST. Only then should the House pass the Senate bill. My trust level of the Democratic leadership is basically zero right now, and I fully believe that if the House passes the Senate bill, there’s every chance that the leadership will let Nelson/Lieberman/et. al. kill the bill with the fixes in it and then say “Well, we tried, but we just didn’t have the votes. Shucky darn.”

    Pass the fixes first (which should include a public option), and then the Senate bill.

  102. 102

    @NR:

    Anyway, I’m with Congressman Weiner. The only way I can get on board with choice #1 is if the fixes to the Senate bill are passed FIRST.

    That’s not really possible.

  103. 103
    gypsy howell says:

    Hee hee – Josh Marshall is getting punchy over all this (while doing yeoman’s work to stay on top of the evolving story) Gotta love his latest headline:

    Jonestown On The Potomac

    Aint it the truth.

  104. 104
    NR says:

    @Brien Jackson: Yes it is. David Waldaman covered this recently.

    When it comes to enacting laws and then later amending those laws, it doesn’t matter in what order Congress passes bills. All that matters is the order in which the president signs those bills into law. As long as the president signs the health care bill 30 seconds before he signs the reconciliation bill, the latter can amend or repeal any provisions in the former. So the House and Senate could, in theory, vote on a conference report amending the Senate health care bill before the House actually has to take the tougher vote to accept the Senate bill.

  105. 105
    Corner Stone says:

    @ThatLeftTurnInABQ:

    So the plan is to get the Dems a set of ‘nads, one Nad at a time?

    Terrorist: You have balls. I like balls.

  106. 106
    kay says:

    @Tractarian:

    Because it doesn’t have to go back through the Senate.

    They get an agreement to pass “key changes” through reconciliation. Now it’s tee’d up. They draft bill with popular insurance reforms, and put it up. Republicans vote against it (and they will, because they’re full of shit).
    The House passes Senate bill, and they change excise tax through reconciliation, pursuant to prior agreement.

  107. 107
    mcc says:

    @Brien Jackson: It’s… sort of possible, I think. Congress Matters, which is not in the habit of allowing what sounds good to take precedence over what is legally possible, said there is a specific (but very complicated) procedure on the table by which the House could simultaneously pass the HCR bill and a reconciliation “patches” bill, in such a way that the HCR bill becoming law would be conditional on the “patches” bill passing.

    However this sounds incredibly risky. Much riskier than I’d like.

    The fixes are pretty uncontroversial things and I almost feel like the Senate dems would be more likely to pass a set of patches if the patches were evaluated on their own terms and not as a second chance to kill the bill.

  108. 108
  109. 109
    David says:

    @NR: The Senate is not passing a public option, bringing that up now is silly. The Senate is also not willing to work on HCR until the House at least passes the current bill (an annoying but not altogether unreasonable position, as the HCR process is quite unpopular).

    The reason Bush could pass stuff is that the Democrats did not filibuster everything in sight. The current GOP is willing to burn the house down, so we have to be willing to take what we can get.

  110. 110
    Tractarian says:

    @NR:

    First of all, filibuster reform (though arguably necessary) is not even part of this discussion. It’s not going to happen.

    Second, you only need 50 votes for measures adopted through reconciliation. Accordingly, Lieberman and Nelson’s votes would not be necessary to make the changes the House Dems want. Sure, they’ll complain, but again, there really are no other options here.

  111. 111

    @Tractarian: That was funny. Mr. Jackson asked you what Harry Reid could do better as *Senate* Majority Leader, and you responded that he should push hard to get his members to vote for the Senate bill. You do realize that Reid’s caucus already voted for the Senate bill, seeing as they are, in fact, the Senate, right?

    What do you think the Senate Majority Leader should do differently?

    I’m picking on this because it reveals a sort of general cluelessness. I’m on board with dumping Reid as fast as possible, not only because he has been ineffective, but also he was institutionally a bad pick to begin with. Get your leadership from safe seats, not ones that are going to have to fight for political survival. Reid could have a lot more backbone than he does, and he’d still be ineffective, because he has his own survival to worry about.

    And, yes, I think he’s been ineffective. I’m not sure that anyone else could have done better, but that’s still an unknown. It is known that Reid can’t do the job, and that means that uncertainty is your friend.

  112. 112
    Corner Stone says:

    @freelancer:

    Really? They’re really talking about that, but that didn’t work the first time, what would make them-

    C’mon man. I think you need to kick back and chillax

  113. 113
    bob h says:

    According to a Kaiser poll being discussed right now on NPR by Julie Ravner, the individual elements of the health bills are quite popular when explained to people, more popular than the bills themselves. How do you figure that? It indicates that many people expressing negative opinions to pollsters do not know what is in the bills, only that the bills are controversial, and that Republicans credulously accept the b.s. talking points their leaders feed them.

    Even President Brown supported the popular Mass. state plan, so it seems pretty easy to dismiss his opposition to national HCR as just opportunistic pandering to Teabagger rubes.

    There has got to be a way forward.

  114. 114
    Corner Stone says:

    And thanks to whoever posted that link to Michael Bérubé earlier.
    That is some quality old fashioned Bérubé right there.

  115. 115
    AxelFoley says:

    @geg6:

    I’d rather we canned Obama than Pelosi.

    Whoa, whoa, whoa, now son…

  116. 116
    wvng says:

    Jane Hamsher just wrote to tell me: “House progressives are under fire to pass the Senate’s terrible bill – without any changes. That means no public option, taxes on the middle class, and massive giveaways to the insurance industry. That’s not acceptable. … Rep. Grijalva has been a true champion for the public option. And now, because he’s sticking to his pledge and his principles, Grijalva is being called a “monster.” We need to get the backs of Grijalva and other progressives.”

    I wrote back to tell her she is fucking insane. And really unhelpful right now.

  117. 117
    kay says:

    @bob h:

    I know this is crazy, but it would have been really goddamned helpful if the media had spent any time on the actual provisions of the actual proposals.

    Instead of waiting for a poll to inform them they once again, didn’t do even the minimum job of offering information.

    How long did we spend on death panels? One provision in the House bill having to do not with “death panels” but instead with “advanced directives”, which didn’t even make it into the final bill.

    I know their job bores the hell out of them, but if I’m willing to slog through legislation, perhaps they could take a stab at it.

  118. 118
    Tractarian says:

    @J. Michael Neal:

    You’re right; I mistakenly read “Senate Majority Leader” as “House Speaker” since that’s what the thread was primarily about.

  119. 119
    cyntax says:

    @J. Michael Neal:

    What do you think the Senate Majority Leader should do differently?

    For starters? Learn how to negotiate: never should have said reconciliation was off the table.

  120. 120
    inkadu says:

    @Emerald: Welcome, Emerald. FYI – Don’t judge this place by today. This is the most panicked I’ve ever seen this place.

    We’re angry, we’re hurt, the Democratic revival is dead, and John’s on pain medication.

    For the next few days, we should all wear those cone-collars around here… you know, the ones they put on dogs to prevent them from chewing their own legs off.

  121. 121
    geg6 says:

    AxelFoley @115: That is only if we are discussing who to dump on the basis of their demonstrated leadership on this issue. I am quite sorely disappointed at our seemingly completely politically tone deaf and passive preznit right at this moment.

  122. 122
    inkadu says:

    mcjoan on the GOS writes:

    …this has been the suckiest week that we’ve lived through politically since every week of the Bush administration.

    As Steve Benen would say, that’s about right.

  123. 123
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @General Winfield Stuck:

    After thinking about this current clusterfuck and taking my dog for walk in the snow, this is how I will view the thing. For anyone who might care.

    I believe any blame that rests for the situation we have, rests mostly with the US Senate election committee and mostly with Mass dems. If people want to add some blame onto Obama, and maybe Tim Kaine, I won’t argue otherwise, as long as it’s just some.

    I do not think the House progs nor the Blue Dogs deserve any blame whatsoever, and that includes the dem House leadership, Pelosi et al.

    They did their job and passed the best bill they could months ago and have nothing to do with senate elections.
    And while I agree it is worth pushing them now to swallow the planetary size bitter pill to pass the senate version only, I will not blame them if they don’t. With the excise tax what it is in the senate bill, it is way lot to ask the peoples reps and their blue collar districts to commit an act that will damage their constituents. That would include any other odious senate bill provisions that needed fixing as well.

    This is on the dysfunctional senate, and maybe a degree of Obama not taking the mantle more firmly in Mass, though I don’t know what he could have done other than pick their candidate for them, or send the SS to round up Coakley from her xmas romp in the sub tropics, or wherever she flew off to.

    Obama needs to up his game a notch or two, though not go all Huey Long/ Have a nice weekend all.

  124. 124
    Da Bomb says:

    @Emerald: According to Geg6- Obama should be canned.

    ????

  125. 125
    Da Bomb says:

    @geg6: Did you see his speech today?

    What would propose for him to do?

    I am with AxelFoley on this one.

    @AxelFoley: Hey AxelFoley! We usually cross paths at WeeSeeYou or Jack and Jill.

  126. 126
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @Emerald: Welcome Mr. Obot. That is a joke we have here for folks who don’t think Obama is George Bush, or Abraham Lincoln, but ain’t a half bad presnit in his first year. I are an obot with plastic unicorns to prove it.

  127. 127
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @Da Bomb: HI Da Bomb. hope you are doing well :)

  128. 128
    dr. bloor says:

    @wvng:

    Yeah, I got the same bizarro e-mail from FDL and made the mistake of stopping in just to get more of the story. The comments section makes the dialogue at Hillaryis44 look like Crooked Timber.

    Jesus.

  129. 129
    Svensker says:

    @wvng:

    Jane Hamsher just wrote to tell me: “House progressives are under fire to pass the Senate’s terrible bill – without any changes.

    I musta got myself off the list a few days ago when I wrote her back on a similar e-mail to tell her she was nuts. Haven’t got any FDL e-mails since.

  130. 130
    inkadu says:

    @Da Bomb: I am apparently alone in taking geg6’s comment to mean that IF we were to can anyone for failure-to-deliver, it should be Obama over Pelosi. That is, she was just saying that Pelosi has been a more effective House Speaker than Obama has been an effective President.

    Really doesn’t sound that controversial to me. At least she didn’t add, “But a hypothetical condition seems too much like science fiction to me, so I’m not really going to think about that nonsense when Emeril is on.”

  131. 131
    PanAmerican says:

    …and another excuse goes by the wayside. Lack of union support?? SEIU boss Andy Stern sounds kinda pissed.

    “It’s gonna be incredibly difficult to stay focused on national politics if by the end of 2010 we have minimal health care and minimal changes on what’s important to our members,” he said in an interview, ridiculing the emerging Dem approach as “fear masquerading as a strategy.”

  132. 132
    DaBomb says:

    @General Winfield Stuck: Hi General!! Good to see you here!

    I am surprised Midnight Marauder hasn’t shown up yet, or Elie, or Valdivia.

    Max is here. So most of the Obots are accounted for.

  133. 133

    @inkadu

    @Da Bomb: I am apparently alone in taking geg6’s comment to mean that IF we were to can anyone for failure-to-deliver, it should be Obama over Pelosi. That is, she was just saying that Pelosi has been a more effective House Speaker than Obama has been an effective President.

    I’m with you on this. Pelosi has been getting screwed by the Senate with all of their bullshit and by the fact that the White House is completely ineffectual. She’s the only Democrat who’s been doing any heavy lifting and all she seems to be getting for it is a ration of shit. Harry Reid is worse than useless and the President Obama has yet to show that he can translate any of his inspiring speeches into anything resembling actual leadership or policy.

  134. 134
    Ailuridae says:

    @wvng:

    Jane Hamsher just wrote to tell me: “House progressives are under fire to pass the Senate’s terrible bill – without any changes. That means no public option, taxes on the middle class, and massive giveaways to the insurance industry. That’s not acceptable. … Rep. Grijalva has been a true champion for the public option. And now, because he’s sticking to his pledge and his principles, Grijalva is being called a “monster.” We need to get the backs of Grijalva and other progressives.”

    Jane is a lot more concerned about winning this argument that she already lost than by helping America as a country and the poor and working class specifically. Again, just page after page of bad faith arguments from her people.

  135. 135
    DaBomb says:

    @inkadu: Well I will still have a problem with that statement as well, because yet again, there were accomplishments in his first year and there’s still 3 more years to contend with.

    So I am reserving my judgment on how effective the President is or isn’t.

    We should continue to call our congresscritters.

    Last time I checked Obama’s approval ratings were significantly higher than Pelosi’s and any future teabagging candidate(i.e. Gingrich, Palin, and others).

    I like Pelosi and I think she is doing a decent job with what is going on.

  136. 136

    @Tim F.

    Don’t get me wrong about Pelosi. She managed the caucus well enough, up until that minor Chernobyl incident three days ago. When we say that nobody thought about what to do if Coakley lost ‘nobody’ means Pelosi, Reid and Barack Obama. That shit won’t fly. My vote goes to any Democrat who rescues this miasmatic tailspin.

    And why exactly is it Nancy Pelosi’s job to get Martha Coakley elected? I mean for fuck’s sake, she’s Speaker of the House, she’s kind of busy and she probably never thought that Barack Obama would stab her in the back by releasing that poorly worded statement that the health care vote needed to wait until Scott Brown was seated. If anyone is to blame for this it’s the useless Obama administration which has shown no leadership, none whatsoever, on the issue of health care.

  137. 137
    Tom Hilton says:

    @dr. bloor: in all fairness, the comments there are by no means unanimous–I get the feeling the bitter-enders have lost some of their people. Of course the sane people in the thread have poor idiot Jane telling them “Because shut up! That’s why!”

  138. 138
    Ailuridae says:

    Dingell on the Senate Bill via Ezra:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.c....._of_t.html

    Now in fairness Dingell doesn’t really have Jane’s bonafides working for health care, unions or less well-off so take the following with a grain of salt:

    Nobody ever gets exactly what they want. I’ve been legislating for 55 years and I can’t remember a perfect bill. This bill is a hell of a way from what I would’ve done. But I support it. It’s necessary. It will help. And in this system, I’ll have further chances to change it and make it better. In the meantime, people need this.

  139. 139
    Tim Chambers says:

    Any other confirmations of this? From E.J. Dionne

    So here’s an idea, I have been told reliably, that leaders of both Houses are considering: The House would pass a version of the reconciliation bill containing the various amendments and send it to the Senate. The Senate would change it slightly (in ways that the House agreed to), which would require the House to vote on it again. Only after it got the revised reconciliation bill would the House take up the Senate bill. The House could then pass both bills and send both to the president. Problem solved, health-care passes, and we move on.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.c.....ve_th.html

  140. 140
    DaBomb says:

    @Ailuridae: I like Dingell. He’s for passing it. And at least he’s saying it.

  141. 141
    mcc says:

    So… that was interesting.

    In a fit of poor planning, and at the urging of tcolberg in the other thread, I checked Google Maps and discovered that I was sitting within walking distance of Pelosi’s San Francisco office.

    So, uh… I walked there.

    I printed out before I left a copy of the Balloon Juice whip count spreadsheet. I added a header saying:

    The readers of the blog balloon-juice.com called these House members and asked them if they would support passing the Senate health care bill. The highlighted lines are members whose offices specifically said they were waiting on direction from leadership. Democrats are confused and undecided and need Pelosi and other leadership to take a strong position on what to do next.

    …with highlighter on all the lines for which an aide had said the Representative was waiting on marching orders from leadership (this turned out to be about 20 out of the about 120 reps we’d called).

    Apparently the entrance to Nancy Pelosi’s office is a tiny room that looks like a doctor’s waiting room at the far end of the second floor of the SF Federal Building, with a receptionist wearing gloves behind sliding-glass windows. I explained why I was there and handed over the spreadsheet printout. The receptionist actually seemed legitimately appreciative and interested (or at least faked it well) and read the spreadsheet as we talked. She said she would forward the list to Pelosi’s policy office in DC “today”.

    So, um, not sure what it actually counts for, but if you’ve contributed to the whip count here in the last 48 hours, congratulations, at a minimum by the end of the day your handiwork will be at the bottom of a stack of paper in Nancy Pelosi’s policy office…

  142. 142
    inkadu says:

    @DaBomb: And again, the statement was made as a rhetorical point on effectiveness, not whom is more important politically (or more popular nationally).

    Three more years!

  143. 143
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @inkadu: I say 7 more, but we will have to fight that battle when it’s time.

  144. 144
    Tim F. says:

    @mcc: You are the fucking man. From another comment somewhere I get the impression that Pelosi’s people already know about the blog.

  145. 145
    inkadu says:

    @General Winfield Stuck: I’d say seven more years, too, but I’m leaving the door open for Super Roosevelt, a lab creation mixing the genes of Franklin Delano and Teddy Roosevelt.

    Zombie Lincoln for veep to give the ticket bipartisan cred. Though, on second thought, you really can’t trust a Republican in today’s party.

  146. 146
    DaBomb says:

    @inkadu: And again, as I said, I don’t agree with it.

    And usually the popularity has to do with the perception that the stated official is efficient by the public at large. Hence they wouldn’t agree to vote for said individual.

  147. 147
    Tim F. says:

    @Wile E. Quixote: Pelosi does not need to get Coakley elected. She needs to have a legislative strategy ready if Coakley loses and another one if Coakley wins. We have known for months that the election would fall right in the middle of the House’s turn at bat on HCR.

    I understand that Nancy Pelosi has a busy schedule with lots of tasks demanding her attention. Nonetheless, she is one of the three most powerful people in the most important country on Earth. I think it is far to expect some contingency planning.

  148. 148
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @Tim Chambers: Senate libs are going to have to read the riot act to Harry Reid and pull together the 50 votes needed up front and stick together through the political storm that will greet them if they walk through this door. And there is no reason for the House to trust the senate as it stands now, at least Harry Reid. The lib senators are going to have to convince the House libs they mean business with no himming and hawwing.

    Political majority death is nipping at their heels if they don’t pull this out. And I don’t think the House progs will swallow just passing the current senate bill to be signed into law, and I don’t blame them one whit.

  149. 149
    AhabTRuler says:

    @Tim F.: FWIW, when I talked to Congressman Van Hollen’s staffer, I mentioned that we were doing a whip count here (she asked where I learned that the congressman was wavering on voting for the bill).

    I have also, since them, left messages on the voicemail of Mikulski and Cardin explaining my disappointment with Senate leadership and my expectation that Senators would work with the House to pass a bill.

  150. 150
    inkadu says:

    @mcc: I think you just became the official Balloon Juice lobbyist.

  151. 151
    AhabTRuler says:

    @General Winfield Stuck: Hey, I’ve already started in on my guys.

    I clearly laid the blame at Reid’s feet and argued strongly (but respectfully) for co-operation with the house. I’ll be interested to see if I get a call back, but I’ll follow up either way.

  152. 152
    DaBomb says:

    @General Winfield Stuck: Agreed.

    Of course, I was referring to the fact that Obama has a 4 year term and has only completed a year of it.

  153. 153
    mcc says:

    @inkadu: Oh shit! Now we’re a Special Interest! :O

  154. 154
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @Tim F.:

    We have known for months that the election would fall right in the middle of the House’s turn at bat on HCR.

    The House passed it’s version months ago and have been waiting on the senate with all of their shenanigans that pushed everything to the time of reconciling the two versions that ran into the Mass election. Pelosi and the House had zero to do with that. And it was Reid and Obama that ruled out a hurry up to do this before Brown was seated. I do not see how Pelsoi has any blame whatsoever. Though now, just 2 days after Mass, it will be on her to develop a plan to go forward.

  155. 155
    DaBomb says:

    @mcc: You rock!

  156. 156
    mcc says:

    By the way, just in case anyone needs to know this, several doors down from Nancy Pelosi’s office is a door labeled “Lactation Room”

    … I don’t know what that means. I think it had something to do with the HHS office across the hall

  157. 157
    Tim F. says:

    @mcc: Great idea! We could hold a fundraiser for you to take a staffer or two somewhere posh. I’m thinking Applebee’s.

  158. 158
    mcc says:

    @Tim F.: I get sick every time I eat there :(

  159. 159
    Emerald says:

    @General Winfield Stuck: Thank you General (and all others who said “welcome”)!

    Yes, it seems I would qualify as an “Obot” (although I’m not suuuuure about the Lincoln part).

    I will say that “Emerald” was not my DKos name. I didn’t want any of those mean people following me here, but I see that Ms. Hamsher makes herself known almost everywhere (her major goal, I believe, along with her post-puma rage).

    Actually I’ve lurked here a little bit. It does look like a fun site. Anyone who admits to being consistently wrong is OK by me.

    One error, however, General: I are a lady Emerald ;-)

    Anyway, everybody calm down until the SOTU. That’ll set things straight.

  160. 160
    Citizen Alan says:

    Let’s get one thing straight. There is not going to be any “pass the Senate bill and then fix things with reconciliation.” That is not going to happen, and if the Senate leadership suggests that it will I would be prepared to call them all liars to their fat ugly faces. The options, as I see it are:

    1. The House passes the Senate version. Period. End of story. We accept the shitty provisions in it and move on with our lives. The Senate will do absolutely nothing to improve things and Carter Obama will not address health care again during his time in office except to make patently false claims about how super-awesome the final bill is.

    2. The House shoots down the Senate bill. Obsessed with the idea of signing HCR into law no matter how bad it is, Carter Obama starts over from scratch and negotiates with the Republicans to produce a bill which even worse by an order of magnitude. That bill will eventually pass with at most three Republican votes, causing David Broder to orgasm all over Meet the Press.

    I support passing the Senate bill right now, but the idea that any of its copious flaws will be addressed within the next 10 years is remote (and in light of Citizens United, possibly non-existent in my lifetime).

  161. 161
    Osprey says:

    @mcc: I know, I was just trying to explain what I thought the Nadler statement was to Tractarian. And I think Nadler just randomly picked out a few of the ideas of the bill that couldn’t be put through reconciliation that would be added in a separate bill. He wasn’t going to go through every nit-pick detail to add into a separate bill for a short press release.

  162. 162
    inkadu says:

    @DaBomb: By popularity, the individual houses of Congress would not even be elected.

    Comparing presidential popularity to Representative popularity isn’t going to net any useful information. Presidents are elected nationally; House leaders are elected locally. Presidents give broad speeches about what there plans are, House leaders have to make compromises.

    Anyway, lets give Pelosi a few days to herd her cats. Its the least we could do for the one Democratic leader who has delivered.

  163. 163

    @inkadu:

    Anyway, lets give Pelosi a few days to herd her cats. Its the least we could do for the one Democratic leader who has delivered.

    Amen. The House Dems came through big AND on time. If any Dems are going to punished it should be the ratfuckers in the Senate. But it is wise counsel to wait and see if she can get that group to stand up one more time. I really do like Pelosi and have great admiration for her.

  164. 164
    Da Bomb says:

    @inkadu: Look we are just going to agree to disagree. That’s it.

    Rhetorical or not, it was not a rational statement. There are plenty of folks who do not follow the netroots and wouldn’t have that opinion of President Obama.

    As some others have said upthread, let the dust settle.

    I have nothing against Nancy Pelosi, she is doing a great job.

    I know how potential candidates are elected to national and state offices.

  165. 165
    mcc says:

    @Osprey: Sorry, I wasn’t trying to imply anything. I did understand you weren’t specifically espousing the ideas in the blockquote but I think I misunderstood Nadler’s comments in the blockquote themselves.

  166. 166
    Ailuridae says:

    @Citizen Alan:

    You’re not even an armchair legislative historian, are you?

    Read the Dionne piece but small things get adjusted in bills all the time. The notion that the Senate bill if passed by the House would remain in stone for a decade is, simply, silly.

  167. 167
    inkadu says:

    @Da Bomb: If you start your sentences with, “Look,” you are giving away your favor for Obama.

    But, look, the statement “Pelosi has been more effective as house leader than Obama has been as president,” is a perfectly rational statement, whether or not you agree with it.

    “I’d rather get rid of Obama than Pelosi,” is irrational, I agree, but that’s the stated point, not the rhetorical one.

    Maybe I give too much credit towards people reading comprehension on a day like today when tensions are high.

    Pelosi good. Obama good. Lieberman bad.

  168. 168
    Da Bomb says:

    @inkadu: Really, that’s surprising that I might be giving my favor away to Obama. since I am a supporter of his.

    All I said was, we can agree to disagree.

    I am done with this.

    Do not insult my intelligence or reading comprehension skills.

    I have not insulted you, do not insult me.

  169. 169
    Osprey says:

    @mcc: Not a problem. I do think he caught some folks off guard with the statement. Edit: Read Tractarian’s 2nd statement, and he’s right, I think somebody confused something. Actually, the blockquote ‘shorter’ above mis-quotes his original statement (sorry was at work, not much time to read it).

    Update 4 also seems to be different from the original article.

    Original article has the ‘plan’ to be

    “We must instead negotiate an agreement with the Senate to pass a few key changes to the Senate bill through the reconciliation process so that both Houses can pass a comprehensive bill. We can then take various popular insurance reforms that cannot be passed through the reconciliation process – dealing with such subjects as pre-existing conditions, rescissions and annual and lifetime benefits – put them in a separate bill

    And it states the House can’t pass the original Senate bill.

    Semantics, I guess, but a little misleading. The shorter and update 4 have him saying “Pass the bill in the house, fix things with reconciliation after”, and the original article says “Can’t pass in house, Senate puts things through reconciliation, then we add another bill with the goodies”.

    Not sure which Nadler is actually standing for now…discussion of what he said seems to have gotten lost between the ideas of kicking Pelosi in the tits and bashing Obama.

  170. 170
    inkadu says:

    I wasn’t referring only to you. I think a lot of people misread geg6’s comment (or read it differently than I did, at least), which is totally understandable given the tension of today. We’re looking for enemies and find them too easily amongst ourselves.

    And I’m honestly just confused about where you stand on this topic, which is why I’d can’t agree to disagree, since I’ don’t even know what I’m agreeing to disagree about!

    If you’re saying the comment as written (I’d rather get rid of Obama than Pelosi) is irrational, then, ok, I agree with that;

    If you say the comment as intended (Pelsoi has been more effective as House Leader than Obama has been as President) is irrational, then I disagree with that, but wouldn’t want to argue whether it’s true or not — its one of those “who was the best boxer of all time?” questions.

    Or maybe you’re just saying the comment just pissed you off, given the FDL-sponsored Crisis in the White House, and you wished POTUS was given a little more deference in the threads and not used as a rhetorical punching bag.

    Sorry. I detest ambiguity.

    Edit: I’m also an Obama fan, and a big fan of his “Look…” sentences. Its one way of cutting through the bullshit while masking his exasperation at morons who deny the reality of the situation.

  171. 171
    The Raven says:

    @Osprey:

    Not sure which Nadler is actually standing for now

    I suspect this is the point. He’s waiting to see which way the wind blows, from the House progressives, from the Senate, from the Administration, …and from us.

  172. 172
    AxelFoley says:

    @Da Bomb:

    Hey, Da Bomb, what’s up?

    Yeah, I decided to branch out a little, to other politically oriented blogs. I still lurk at Kos (don’t think I’ll ever register, as I might jump someone’s shit over there with the way they act sometimes), which got me into Jack and Jill, here at Balloon Juice and TNC’s blog at the Atlantic. I haven’t posted at TNC’s place yet, but probably will in the near future.

Comments are closed.