On Politics, We Can Always See the Whites of Their Eyes.
Is the public option Reid's attempt to shore up a sagging reelection bid?
by: Bill Dupray posted: 2009-10-26 23:25:00
Viewed 333 times. 4 Comments.
He couldn't possibly be doing this for selfish political reasons, could he? If so, it makes you wonder how he thinks screwing over the elderly with $500 billion in Medicare cuts, forcing people to buy insurance as a condition of being alive in the United States (or face a fine and jail time), and saddling individuals and businesses with $400 billion in new taxes is a good move for a reelection bid. But that is exactly what some Democrats are wondering.
“As soon as we get the bill back from CBO and people have a chance to look at it, which we’ll have ample time to do that, I believe we clearly will have the support of my caucus to move to this bill and start legislating,” Reid said.The notion was met with deep skepticism in the Senate, where each senator holds the power to torpedo a bill. Democratic aides speculated that Reid’s decision was motivated in part by electoral considerations. He faces a tough reelection next year, and this move is bound to shore up his left flank, which has derided him over the years as cautious and too willing to compromise.
This doesn't seem to be a very good gamble for a guy who represents Las Vegas. Lots of folks are very skeptical of whether he can get 60 votes.
The move amounted to a major gamble by the Nevada Democrat, who is betting that he can sway the last few moderates onto his plan for a public option that would allow states to opt out by 2014.But at the same time, Democratic Senate aides expressed worries that Reid was going too far, too fast with a strategy that allows no room for error. . . .
But the task ahead for Reid is steep, and at this point, even expert Senate vote-counters say there’s no way to know if Reid can pull it off. It all comes down to moderates — and Reid’s skill at convincing them the opt-out plan is not the budget-busting Big Government health takeover many worry about.
The early signs are not encouraging for Reid.
Two Democratic holdouts, Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, have refused to commit to voting either way on the bill until they review it. And Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, the mostly likely Republican to support the bill, has said it would be “difficult” to support any bill with a government insurance option.
Even the New York Times, not exactly a right-wing naysayer, thinks the tea leaves may tell a different story.
Opponents of the public option have argued that it should be left out of the bill and that supporters should be forced to offer an amendment to add it to the legislation. In either case, winning 60 votes would seem to be a steep hurdle. . . .Pressed on whether he could advance the bill with the public option included, Mr. Reid said he believed Senate Democrats would remain united to do so. “I believe we clearly will have the support of my caucus to move to this bill and start legislating,” he said.
But other Democrats were not so sure. Even as liberal groups quickly began heaping praise on Mr. Reid for his decision to support a government-run plan, some Democrats on Capitol Hill privately expressed worries that he did not have firm commitments from all 60 Senate Democrats.
I think Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) called this one correctly. This has been Reid's plan all along. He needs to cover his (and other Democrats') left flank for reelection by offering the government option, but there is no chance it will pass. After it is defeated, Reid will send it back to have the provision stripped out. All of the Democrat hand-wringing over Reid's "gamble," is merely part of the plan to prepare their base for the coming bad news.
Tags: Senate,
Related Articles
- What is an earmark, and why are the pubs jumping off this cliff?
- Sen. Inhofe is right - Earmarks are child's play
- Despite Pelosi's denials, taxpayer-funded abortions appear 8 times in Senate bill
- Kent Conrad can't do math: Thinks 0.28% is a big number
Links to this post
Trackback url: http://patriotroom.com/article/is-the-public-option-reid-s-attempt-to-shore-up-a-sagging-reelection-bid/trackback
Comments 4
Reid has no choice. If he is to hold on to his seat, his only hope is 100% of the union vote. It is a shameless boy-off. But then, what else would you expect.
I expect he will lose next year and we will be rid of this putz. The trouble is that these guys (Reid, Pelosi, Robert Gibbs) are the poster-children of incompetence and they help our side just by opening their mouths. If you get a more normal Majority Leader (assuming the Dems keep the Senate) they could do some real damage. After all, the election was a year ago and all they have done so far is pass the stimulus and raise the cigarette tax.
Have an opinion?
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
Publius' Newsstand
-
Schlafly: Health Care Vote Set to Expose the My...
Direct hit: "It is naive for any elected official, especially one who describes himself as 'pro-life,' to expect that a promise to issue an Executive Order that reasserts the intentions of the Hyde Amendment will be fulfilled by the most pro-abortion president to ever sit in the White House. Perhaps Mr. Stupak and his fellow pro-life Democrats forget that President Obama's first Executive Order was the repeal of the Mexico City Policy to allow for international funding of abortion." "Not only would an Executive Order be rendered meaningless in the face of Congress passing legislation which actively provides for the massive expansion and funding of abortion services, but anyone who doubts the abortion tsunami which awaits this bill becoming law lives in a fantasy world."Views: 80 Comments: 0
-
One last trick up Boehner's sleeve?
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said House leaders are specifically concerned about a Republican motion to recommit that would contain only language on abortion that Stupak originally had wanted to include in the Senate bill. The concern is based on the fear of GOP attack ads painting Democrats who vote against a motion to recommit that includes Stupak’s favored language on abortion as “flip-floppers” on the issue…Views: 270 Comments: 0
-
Crocodile tears: Pro-abortion House livid that ...
Members of the pro-choice caucus are livid after the White House released the Executive Order on abortion to the media without showing it to them. According to members who spoke on the condition of anonymity, at the end of the Stupak press conference today they were still waiting to see the language of the Executive Order. The first they saw of it was after the White House released it with a statement to the media.Views: 77 Comments: 1
-
The Hill factors in Stupak: Defeat still within...
They count 37 dem "no" votes. Makes Kanjorski (PA-11) dang important.Views: 183 Comments: 0
-
New issue? Senate cannot take up expedited reco...
From Drudge - FLASH: Senate Republicans found a provision in the new House health care bill that likely makes it ineligible for expedited 'reconciliation' procedures in the Senate. Dems refused to meet with GOP and Parliamentarian.... Developing....Views: 156 Comments: 0
-
Stupak News Conference at 4PM
From FDL: 3:28 pm – CNN is reporting that a Stupak press conference will take place at 4 pm. If Stupak’s bloc decides to vote in mass for the bill it will pass baring a large revolt from pro-choice Democrats.Views: 89 Comments: 1
-
If Barack Forces Passage of Health Care “Reform...
Great Analysis. Begins here: Would a straightforward, unbiased analysis of the presidential actions of Barack Obama through March 2010, lead to a demand for his immediate impeachment and removal from office? Yes, for a most transparent reason: Obama is purposely undermining the US Constitution. In doing so, his actions make unstable every institution and office below the presidency, since the Constitution is the foundation of every government power and official decision. In fomenting institutional unrest across the US, he threatens the safety of every American man, woman and child, and all our citizens abroad.Views: 114 Comments: 8
-
Conference of Bishops: It is the unanimous view...
Do we really need to state the obvious? Laws are made and changed in the Legislative Branch, not the Executive. Only in dictatorships are laws made by the Executive Branch.According to these rulings, such health legislation creates a statutory requirement for abortion funding, unless Congress clearly forbids such funding. That is why the Hyde amendment was needed in 1976, to stop Medicaid from funding 300,000 abortions a year. The statutory mandate construed by the courts would override any executive order or regulation. This is the unanimous view of our legal advisors and of the experts we have consulted on abortion jurisprudence. Only a change in the law enacted by Congress, not an executive order, can begin to address this very serious problem in the legislation."
Views: 83 Comments: 0
-
Breaking: Hoyer - We don't have the votes yet
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) predicted Sunday that Democrats will have the votes to pass the massive health care bill later in the day, but he suggested a number of crucial Members were still undecided. “There are still Members looking at it and trying to make up their minds, but we think there are going to be 216-plus votes when we call the roll,” Hoyer said on NBC’s "Meet the Press.” He added, "We’re going to pass this bill.” Hoyer said the remaining votes the Democrats need are “in the low single digits, certainly.”Views: 97 Comments: 0
-
Senate bill requires 67 vote supermajority to k...
So the Dems now want to decide who lives and who dies so badly, they have rigged the rules to require 67 votes to kill the death panels. Keep in mind this is the same number of votes needed to pass a Constitutional Amendment.[Democrats] have inserted . . . a provision that it would take a supermajority of 67 votes in the Senate for future legislative bodies to even consider amendments to its provisions for "death panels." . . . The bill states, "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." That subsection addresses rules and regulations that doctors would be ordered to follow by the "Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels," RedState reported.
Views: 89 Comments: 1
Get Your PR Button!
More Articles By Bill Dupray
- One last trick up Boehner's sleeve?
on 2010-03-21 with 270 views - WaPo: Hey, that individual mandate kinda looks unconstitutional
on 2010-03-21 with 225 views - After the vote: Head-spinning blowback
on 2010-03-21 with 255 views - Conference of Bishops: It is the unanimous view of our legal advisors and experts that an Executive Order on abortion is of no legal effect
on 2010-03-21 with 83 views - Breaking: Hoyer - We don't have the votes yet
on 2010-03-21 with 97 views - Senate bill requires 67 vote supermajority to kill death panels
on 2010-03-21 with 89 views - Dems trash Tricare, start losing votes: Nye is a 'No'
on 2010-03-21 with 88 views - Stupak this morning: Until we have a deal on abortion, they don't have the votes
on 2010-03-21 with 59 views - How Obamacare dies: NOT buying health insurance is NOT Interstate Commerce
on 2010-03-20 with 539 views - Waxman: No 'Deem and Pass' - We pass the Senate bill or we don't
on 2010-03-20 with 109 views
Reid is a snivelling weasel and a coward bastard. Screw him.
http://www.hackwilson.blogspot.com