Comments on: Centrist Dem Senators: Sorry, We’ll Help GOP Filibuster If We Want To

By: blackton

blackton — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:27:11 +0000

This is literally a once in a lifetime chance, we have been trying to get this done since Truman. If these Senators are going to say it is their way or nothing, with nothing pretty much the end result, then the hell with them. This is it, this is the issue, this is Democratic D-Day, are they with the Germans or us? But if these Senators would say they will likely vote for Cloture, then Republicans will know they have no choice but to deal, and Republicans can get serious, now all the Republicans have to do is stonewall forever. Otherwise 60 votes in meaningless, might as well be 56 real Democrats.

By the way, did Republicans threaten to filibuster Bush during his first year? Bush only had 50 votes and still passed most of what he wanted, in fact his 300 billion compromise on his tax cut from 1.6 to 1.3 was not that different from Obama’s compromise, and Dems had 58 votes in their caucus. RINO’s are far more Republican than DINO’s are Democrat. Enough is enough.

By: gonzone

gonzone — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:42:00 +0000

I take exception to the characterization of Bayh and Landrieu as “centrist”.

There are several Republican Senators who vote more liberally than these two. And, no, where/who they purportedly represent does NOT count since its the Senate (that’s part of why we have the Senate).

By: SamNC

SamNC — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:01:24 +0000

Forget labels. Howard Dean said last night this is a battle between the insurance companies and the American people. The people want to have a choice between for-profit plans and a public plan. They are sick of being mistreated by the insurance companies, and having to just take it. So now there should be no concealing which Senators are on the side of the insurance companies and which are on the side of the American people.

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:38:37 +0000

Looks like MoveOn is doing the right thing by running ads against theses so called Democrats. Tim for the to be shipped out with the rest of the Republican cabel in 2010. Americans are tired of this BS

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:15:05 +0000

Filibusters are an extreme tactic, particularly when used by a few members to block major policy proposals supported by their party PLUS a supermajority of the American public. We should also note that the policies will likely be compromises anyway (Obama is no radical).

By: flounder

flounder — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:22:50 +0000

I think the taking away committee assignments has to be an option.
I also prefer the term “Lieberdem” to the increasingly incorrect “centrist dem”.

By: Dollared

Dollared — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:01:27 +0000

I am 100% with Alice Olson. It is a values-laden label, and bad journalism, to call Nelson and Landrieu “centrist.” You can call them Blue Dogs, or Contrarian, or Conservative, but they are not centrist when they oppose what 76% of Americans want.

By: dikasllgos

dikasllgos — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:22:09 +0000

Deracination, big time and quickly, seems to be an appropriate method of solving the problem of the latter day Ephialtes in the Democratic Party.

By: Alice Olson

Alice Olson — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:36:38 +0000

Why would you call Nelson and Landrieu “centrist”? They decline to support a public option in health care coverage, a policy supported by more than 70% of Americans, including more than 50% of those few remaining Americans who still call themselves Republicans. What would it take to be called a “conservative” Democrat, or even a “right wing” Democrat. This matter of labels is so central to main stream media’s simplistic view of politics and politicians. If you must use them, please use something that makes sense in light of the reality.

Alice Olson

By: sbj

sbj — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 15:14:53 +0000

@Bob: Quite right!

“It’s striking how zealously they are guarding their right to enable a minority of Senators to prevent important initiatives . . .”

That’s funny, Greg, because I thought Nelson said he was guarding his right to prevent “an abuse of procedure” or prevent the injection of “a poison pill into a bill.”

These are two things you used to be opposed to – but now for the sake of 60 votes you are willing to jettison principal? “You’re either with us or against us . . .”

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 14:47:56 +0000

Not voting the party line is a bad thing then? The party is always right?

By: par4

par4 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:54:51 +0000

Howard Dean has it right,reconciliation, it is also the way to deflate some of the massive egos of these conservadems.

By: mike from Arlington

mike from Arlington — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:26:29 +0000

I heard a statement from Evan Bayh along the same lines as Landrieu and Nelson. It should make Democrats furious that 3-4 Senators could possibly make the difference between health care costs going down and the status quo we have been in for some time now.

By: alan

alan — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:18:50 +0000

Trouble is that these people have been getting away with this for years. They were reliable Bushista votes in the “interregnum”. The Republicans could always count on them. Nelson is a particularly egregious offender and needs to be given a swift kick up his ***. No earmarks will be a start.

By: Danp

Danp — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:10:40 +0000

But at least we now have a standard. For Landrieu, it’s procedural straitjacket, which I would interpret as an extreme injustice. For Nelson, it’s poison pill or something that pre-empts Nebraska law. Hold them to that standard, and make them strongly justify each and every vote against cloture against it.