« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Update — Sen. Sanders is a NO, the SEIU & the AFL-CIO may be a NO on ObamaCare

By: Dan Perrin (Diary)  |  December 16th, 2009 at 04:44 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The Hill is reporting that Senator Sanders is a NO on ObamaCare:

Asked by Fox Business Network’s Neil Cavuto asked Sanders if he could support the compromise bill. The senator replied “I’m struggling with this. As of this point I am not voting for the bill. And here’s why.”

Sanders, who favors a single-payer healthcare system, said that he has informed the White House and Democratic leadership of his position.

“As of this moment. I am going to do my best to make this bill a better bill, a bill that I can vote for but I’ve indicated both to the White House and the Democratic leadership that my vote is not secure at this point,” he said.

And this just in from the Huffington Post regarding the SEIU and the AFL-CIO’s support for ObamaCare:

“Two of the country’s largest labor groups, the SEIU and the AFL-CIO, are each holding emergency executive meetings today to discuss whether they should support the latest round of health care compromises made by Senate Democrats.

Though there’s no official word yet, early indications based on talks with various officials are that the groups will either formally oppose the legislation or, less dramatically, just not fight very hard to ensure its passage.”

The White House backing Lieberman’s demands are figuring prominently in the left’s push back against the bill. It is safe to say they really, really do not like Lieberman and just the fact that he is the one who pulled forced the deal to pull the public option and kill the Medicare expansion, may be as objectionable to the left as the deal to pull the provisions — that is, if and when they get 60 votes on the Senate floor to do it.

And Howard Dean keeps pounding the Senate bill — “We’ve gotten to this stage … in Washington where passing any bill is a victory, and that’s the problem,” Dean said. “Decisions are being about the long-term future of this country for short-term political reasons, and that’s never a good sign.” He also said the bill “does more harm than good,” and “it is not worth passing.”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • erod

    It just keeps keep getting better.
    Merry Christmas everyone!

    • farstar99

      He’ll withdraw the current language and obey his masters; Obama and the unions.

      • erod
  • erod

    It just keeps keep getting better.
    Merry Christmas everyone!

  • Richard Mullins

    I hope all this hatred of the bill by the far left. I hope that we can have it die on their hands(Not that I care who kills it).

  • Composer_Man

    but it feels like the good guys are winning. I’m feeling better today about our prospects for driving a stake in the heart of this vampire.

    I don’t say that to encourage complacency, but optimism. It’s not over ’til it’s over.

  • Dan Perrin

    the heart of the happy warrior.

    I do.

  • vamoose

    from HuffPo:
    As one high-ranking labor official emailed the Huffington Post:

    “What is really frustrating folks here is that it’s impossible to make and implement plans to pressure senators when the White House and Reid keep undermining the efforts no one from the outside can put any credible pressure on Senators because they know the White House will back that Senator up whatever they do. If the White House is going to cave to a Senator who spent the entire election campaigning with McCain and calling Obama a traitor how are we supposed to have any leverage over anyone?

    “If Lieberman — who has done so many horrible things directly to Obama — can get away with this on Obama’s signature issue it makes it infinitely harder for us to pressure senators, on issues in the future, because there is no fear of retribution or coercion from the White House. They only pressure progressives, not anyone in the middle.”
    ===

    This gives insight into big labor’s standard operating procedures: pressure, fear, intimidation. Imagine, the union is pissed because they can’t green-light their goons to pressure senators. And boy scouts are off limits too!

    • Dan Perrin

      Thanks for posting that quote about “pressure” from the article, it really speaks volumes doesn’t it?

  • thurlowweed

    It was so fun watching Sen. Senders wax apoplectic on the Senate floor when he withdrew his amendment.

    Maybe the wicked witch stay dead for another year!

  • Mayhem

    indicates to me that the GOP thinks the situation on this bill has gone from bad for the Democrats to good for the Democrats (not politically, of course, but passage-wise).

    Many at Redstate railed against McConnell for his “messaging amendments.” Then we heard that the reason the Republicans were doing that was because they felt they could get away with it and still achieve the same goal of defeating the bill. Only as a last resort, in the most dire of circumstances, would they move to procedural delaying tactics.

    Today’s actions are a sign that they think the situation is dire and passage is closer, IMHO. Either way, keep delaying.

    • stigmo

      Can some others comment on it? I’ve also heard that maybe this tactic is supposed to be the fork in the back of HCR, but I have real fears that this means we’ve lost.

    • vamoose

      Sanders move to withdraw the amendment also shows weakness on the part of Dems. So who’s weaker at the moment? Time has proven to be the GOP’s ally and Dems enemy. Yes, it’s better to have Dem infighting delaying things, but the Coburn felt the need to step in today. Perhaps the delay will allow new rifts to incubate among Democrats and they will go back to bickering amongst themselves. I see problems ahead for Dems in the house. Since the house passed their version of HCR, support for the legislation has declined even further and support in the house for the senate version may get shaky. I hope so.

    • countessolenska

      Obama told Charles Gibson today that if the Senate didn’t pass a health care bill that lowered health care costs, the country would go bankrupt. That’s a pretty startling admission.

      • Leopard1996

        Just like Bush was staing that without social security reform the country would bo bankrupt. Well we didn’t get that reform either. Obama is trying to fear monger to get this done. I would love to know one thing in this bill that would help the country not go bankrupt.

        • stigmo

          Folks tend to look at Iraq or Katrina as the point when Bush’s presidency went south. I’ve always maintained that Social Security reform was when he lost his handle. Hopefully it will be the same for Obama–though we’re a lot further down the road with it.

          • Leopard1996

            Although with the current nimrod, maybe if he would have been more like Bush and said, this is what I will sign, we would at least know what is going on, not this garbage we are seeing now.

      • izoneguy

        HA HA HA….
        You fell for it.

        ObamaScare

        Obama does not know anything and knows less about economics.

        The only way America will go bankrupt is if Americans keep voting for socialists that want to re-distribute your wealth.

        Obama must be stopped.

      • Richard Mullins

        So it doesn’t matter how many interviews and speeches he does, it’s doesn’t change the reality. Don’t be fooled by these idiots.

        • countessolenska

          So, I think Obama is telling the truth here. I mean, why are there numerous bills by various senators and House members to reform health care, including Republicans Tom Coburn, Bob Corker, Paul Ryan and Judd Gregg? Everyone knows health care costs are unsustainable. And, the costs paid by the government are REALLY unsustainable because no one wants to raise taxes on the middle class.

          • DONTREADONME

            I think you messed up here, SS will bankrupt the system long before medicare unless you plan on expanding the coverage to include people over 55.

          • DONTREADONME

            by getting the Government out of the insurance and healthcare business all together.

            The private sector and a free market would never allow healthcare costs to increase lest they suffer a profit margin decrease due to the fact that no one can afford the coverage or the procedures. No one paying for procedures means no money to pay the doctors. I know this is simple, but come on are you that simple?

          • Leopard1996

            And not have our old people, eating cat food, and dying in the streets, which is the typical democrat claim, would be to allow younger and younger folks get out of paying into medicare, those younger people (assuming that they have a clue), will use that money that got put into their pocket to buy insurance that suits them, and we don’t have their burden on the gov’t dime. Those that have already paid into it, get to use it as an option because even though the whole medicare thing was unconstitutional, the govt did pass a contract and they should uphold it, not gut it by 500 million and try to get us all to be slaves to the govt.

          • Richard Mullins

            that doesn’t mean it’s going to bankrupt the US. What is going to bankrupt the country is all the entitlements not just Medicare. You haven’t gotten to crux of the problem.

  • Section9

    Cheer me up, Dan. Tell me that this isn’t some vas trap we are walking into to get us to let down our gourd, er, gaurd.

    • Dan Perrin

      argument.

      I think that winning motivates more than losing — for most.

      For some like the happy warriors, it is largely irrelevant, the battle, the fight is what is fun.

      Think the Lord of the Rings thing, you know, the hobbit walks through the darkest parts of the land….

      The Dems are truly and royally upside-down politically, all because they have been irrational.

      This is the part where the fish flops around on the beach, thrashing in its death throes.

      They are at an unsolvable impass on abortion and the public option. Two sides that simply cannot compromise.

      The bill will just do what it is doing now, spin in place.

      This is why Coburn launched today, first, why not?

      Second, there is a part of the caucus who were barely able to sit on their hands and obey McConnell. And they just could not sit by any longer.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    With Reid having given in to Lieberman, that encourages others to threaten and wheedle to see how much of their way they can get – but more importantly, the interest groups see blood in the water and are sharpening their teeth to see what they can get.

    But at some point, when the final up-or-down decision point comes, that’s when we’ll find out how non-negotiable the demands are.

    Until that point, it’s all sound-and-fury and spectacle – when the final point comes to decide if something is better than nothing – and that something isn’t getting any better – then we’ll find out what the Senators are made of.

    Until then, all the Republicans do is to increase on the pressure – and deny cover to anyone on the Democratic side. Such as what happened with Sanders today. No more Republican participation in theater.

    But again, if cloture goes down, it won’t be with 59 aye votes for cloture; no one will be the one to prevent 60 votes.

    • Dan Perrin

      will be a vote

    • vamoose

      I think what it comes down to is, can will power alone pass HCR legislation? No coherent rationale remains for pushing HCR upon America.

  • stigmo

    A good emotional victory, but I can’t help feeling like they signal the beginning of the end (for America).

    • http://www.the41stvote.org rcov092

      bring out the knives, guns and nuclear weapons if need be to preserve the Constitution.

  • bs

    which is the real issue. They can get 51 votes. The question is if they can get 60, and Sanders may be one of the 60 for cloture.

    • Dan Perrin

      that, if you say you are going to vote against the bill then vote FOR cloture, you have lost your leverage.

      He has to threaten to vote against cloture if he expects to have any changes made to the bill or any of his demands met.

    • IJB
  • Mayhem

    can you clarify your viewpoint maybe? When you say you think the bill will fail (and you have consistently), are you saying that you think there will be a vote, the vote will fail, the bill will die, and they will move on to something else? Are you saying you think the whole healthcare effort currently before Congress will be defeated and no new legislation will go on the books?

    That’s how I would define “defeat,” at least.

    • Dan Perrin

      bill just spins in place because the Dems do not have 60 votes, but they cannot bring themselves to cut their losses.

      So we just sit here, and the bill loses power, the public hates it more and the Dems drop in the polls.

      The Dems may just let the whole toxic mess drift into outer darkness, and never have a vote.

      However, if they have a vote now, they will not get to 60, and once Senators see that they will not get to 60, they will bail because they do not want to take the pounding at home for a vote they do not need to take.

      So now, the choice of Senator Reid is to lose BIG on his 60 votes, or to never have a vote on cloture.

      Which would you choose?

      Therefore, spinning in place is the best option, if your going to lose.

      What is really fun is the Speaker saying that they are going to try to get health care done by the State of the Union. That woman is radioactive politically, and she is going to influence Senators who are running screaming from the Senate floor trying not to vote on the toxic ObamaCare?

      The Dems are truly delusional.

      • Mayhem

        then they are gonna have to think up one heck of an explanation when they announce the cloture vote won’t happen. I just wonder who decides “enough is enough” and cuts the cord. At what point do they decide the impasse is “impassible?” At what point do they admit defeat and move on? And do they kill the bill even if the WH wants them to keep pushing? Oh, that press conference will be utterly amazing.

        As the old hymn says: “What a day that will be!”

  • Mayhem

    This is different from Dan’s earlier article. Senator Sanders told the WH and Reid that he is voting against the bill unless it is changed back.

    Needless to say, HUGE.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/72623-sanders-says-he-cant-vote-for-healthcare-bill

    • earlgrey

      Thanks

      • Dan Perrin

        Thanks Mayhem!

    • bk

      If they say they’ll vote no, does that mean:
      1) They really will vote no.
      2) They are just waiting for the right tansom to be paid and they will vote yes, saying the problem they had was fixed so they did’nt break their promise.
      3) They will vote for cloture but against the bill, and then say they didn’t break their promise.

  • bobojake

    harry reid and obama may have to change skivies after the Union, Howard Dean get done with them and reidgate-obamagate only ends up with 58 vites.

  • snowshooze

    Yep, they will have another round of extortion and bribery to contend with, I wonder what Sanders will sell out for.
    It was great to see that he retracted his own amendment, knowing full well it could never survive the light of day.
    Mark

    • Dan Perrin

      The abortion and the public option questions are binary, zero or one, yes or no, there is no splitting the difference.

      • clowngirl

        (Meaning that they’d experiment with different ways to disguise it) if it wasn’t for Lieberman.

        I’d rather he was voting against Obamacare – heck I’d rather he’d just cross-over and become a Republican – but he’s doing a tremendous service even by being an honest Democrat. Howard Dean who would utterly destroy America if given the chance ( I shudder at the thought of him as President) is serving America by sticking to his principles – wrong though they are.

        Which just illustrates that those who have the guts to stand for something – ANYTHING – even the total whackjobs are less dangerous to America than those who just conform.

      • cari

        they’re trying to give Ben Nelson his abortion “language”:

        http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2009/12/16/source-abortion-compromise-talks-underway.aspx

        but he’s sure facing the heat back at home:

        http://www.nationalreview.com/doctor/post/?q=OThmMTdiYWQwOTc3YmI1YjQ0YzA1YzkxMWI5NTZiNGQ=

    • bobojake

      Once an amendent is on the floor it needs to complete the process and reid interveined to broke a Senate rule to stop the reading and have sanders Amendent without a vote. Its high time for reid to be sent packing and his party of NO-NO-ACCOUNTIBILITY THE DEMOCRATS.

  • clowngirl

    the other day was that it was very unlikely she’d get on board. I’d love to hear your reasoning for that!

    I haven’t formed much of an opinion on Snowe’s likely vote, but her comments about how it would be very difficult to address all of her concerns by Christmas made it sound like she was still open to the possibility that it might become a bill she could support.

    I was glad to see that one of her problems was with the individual mandate though. =)

    Without that the bill falls apart.