So how would any president including a President Kucinch get a Public Option thru Senate?

[WI_DEM]

I'm not trying to criticize anybody here, but I would like to know how any solid, liberal democratic president--even if it were Dennis Kucinich would have gotten a far reaching, progressive Health Care bill thru this senate when we have 40 Republicans who are automatic No's, Lieberman who will stop any progressive legislation and people like Nelson, Lincoln & Landreau.

The thing is we could have had a much stronger bill with President Obama signing it IF we didn't have a fillibuster in the senate where it takes every member of our caucus no matter how conservative they are to get it on the floor for a vote. We could have passed Health Care with 50 plus VP Biden with a strong Public Option if it were not for the Senate Fillibuster.

Could Obama have shown more leadership? Probably, but he also got it further than any other president in history, too. The thing is nothing worthwhile is going to be done in the Senate with the Fillibuster. Look at all the House has accomplished this year versus the Senate.

[hayu_lol]

1. For what could have been done...

examine how Bush/Cheney managed to 'git her done.'

[Beetwasher]

3. So We Should Be Like Republicans?

No thanks.

[tekisui]

12. Not in policy, but in effectiveness-YES!

[Beetwasher]

14. The Only Way To Be As Effective Is To Be Them

The reason they are so effective is because they are Republicans and they have no ethics, no morals and no compunctions. They lie with impunity and march in mindless, lockstepping cohesion. Have fun w/ that.

[tekisui]

16. They force unity when it comes to vote time.

Our leadership rolls over and shows its belly at the first sign of confrontation. They play it safe and weak.

[Beetwasher]

17. How Do They Do That?

What's the secret? Do you know? How do you FORCE unity? I'll tell you. You have to be willing to go all Cheney. That's ok w/ you?

[tekisui]

19. Politics isn't for the weak.

If it isn't the Democratic Leadership playing mean to get the votes, it will be someone else gunning for the power. The Dems are forfeiting their power to the centrists. You threaten and follow through. You make examples and demand support. They will grovel back at election time because the successful legislation will have produced increased public support.

[Beetwasher]

30. How Do You Threaten A Lieberman??? The Fact Is, It's Only A FEW Senators

One in particular who is NOT leverageable. He is on a personal vendetta and there is not threat that the Dems have that can make him vote w/ them. Not a one unless they are willing to go all Cheney. And they're not willing, and that's ok w/ me because THOSE kinds of threats are not acceptable.

[PADemD]

35. Take away his chairmanship!

[Beetwasher]

41. He Would STILL Fillibuster, It Would Change NOTHING

They should do it anyway, but it would change nothing.

[gratuitous]

20. Without going Cheney . . .

The party leadership could gently remind recalcitrant Senators of a few facts of life: Their positions as chair of various committees and subcommittees depends on the good will of the Majority Leader. Is your seat really safe in 2010 (appropriate for those looking at re-election next year, which doesn't apply to all of them)? Would you like to be sure of a nice revenue stream from the DSCC? Those are a couple of back room sort of things.

In public, the leadership can cite and continue to cite polls that show the public support for single payer or a public option. There will always be a role for insurance companies, as people look to supplement their coverage, but a floor must be placed under the American people, particularly the most vulnerable. And at some point in our lives, well over 90% of us will face the prospect of that vulnerability: a savings-draining illness or accident that impoverishes us. It's a pretty easy case to make, but the leadership hasn't been out there to make it, instead leaving the public discussion to tools, idiots and deathmongers to bandy about the notions of "rationed care" or "death panels."

A lot of elected officials knuckled under when the teabaggers started shouting. How many of them would have stood up to the hype if the leadership had been providing a consistent counterweight?

[Beetwasher]

31. That DOES Work On MOST, But How Do You "Gently Remind" Lieberman????

You can't. It's essentially one completely recalicitrant Senator who is not reasonable. There's NOTHING you can do about him w/out going all Cheney.

[gratuitous]

38. Lieberman DOES have a committee chairmanship he rather likes

It would be a simple maneuver to drop by his office and let him know that chairmanships are granted by the majority party, and can be taken away just as easily. If Joe is defiant, the Majority Leader can start referring all kinds of nasty little hearings that nobody really cares about to take up the time of Lieberman's committee. The Democrats could also close their caucus meetings to Mr. Lieberman, since he's apparently unwilling to play ball with the party. The thing is that the Majority Leader has a number of tools at his disposal that don't involve out-and-out nuclear war. Reid has shown a remarkable amount of restraint* in turning to those tools to enforce party discipline.

*Yeah, let's call it "restraint."

[Beetwasher]

43. So What? It Would Change NOTHING To Yank His Chairmanship (We Should Do It Anyway Though)

Yes, please, take his chairmanship. But it STILL changes nothing. He would still fillibuster. Changes nothing.

[gratuitous]

46. Maybe yes, maybe no

But not doing anything results in a 100% no.

AND I'd be interested to see if Lieberman and the Republicans actually have the belly for a filibuster of the bill. This definitely gets to the edge of triple-dog dare territory, but if the leadership of the Democratic Senate gets its act together and fashions a game plan, there's no reason they couldn't face down a filibuster. Putting out the message that Lieberman, the Republicans and anyone else who supports them in the Senate is in favor of more Americans dying for lack of health care would work and work well. Certainly the times when that was intimated - that people are dying while the Party of No dithers - it raised an immediate hostile response; and I think it was because that was not only an apt description, but it earned the Republicans some heat from their own constituents.

As long as the conversation is about "rationing" and "death panels" (as if those features of our health care system didn't exist already), the Democrats are playing a losing hand. Make it about actual assistance to a broad swath of the population, and the polling numbers shoot back up.

[Beetwasher]

47. It's Easy To Destroy And Tear Down

Much harder to build up.

Lieberman doesn't care about results, he cares about revenge. You can't leverage him.

It's easy for Lieberman to take his positon. He WANTS the bill to go down in flames. Dems don't want that to happen. The fact is, many Dems DO care. They want to build and accomplish something. Lieberman only wants revenge. He holds all the cards and there's no bargaining w/ him. There's no "maybe" about it. You only need to look at his actions and what he's saying. He's coming right out and saying that he's pretty much doing this to fuck w/ Liberals.

Punishing him in '06 would have changed nothing. That's not to say we shouldn't have dont it anywyay, but we'd still be where we are today.

[WI_DEM]

4. Explain what they got done? legislatively

Three Tax Cuts by reconciliation, but in reading about Reconciliation it doesn't appear that the Health Bill qualifies for that process.

[SIMPLYB1980]

6. Well maybe we could have another 9:11

to make the Senate compliant? :sarcasm:

[MineralMan]

2. You make an excellent point.

The problem is not Obama. The problem is a half a dozen idiot Senators. Perhaps we can do something about that instead of tearing our own party apart.

[treestar]

23. And the people in those states

Who are still obviously conservative.

And then LIEberman, who is an idiot, but people vote their idiots back in no matter what they do.

[kctim]

29. Not entirely true

many moderate Dems from moderate areas who are for a public option will lose to Republicans in 2010 and 2012, if this is still front page news.

[shaayecanaan]

5. put it to a vote...

bring the cots in and let them filibuster for as long as they like. Dont let them pass anything else. Not supply bills. Nothing. If they dont get tired of talking they`ll get tired of not getting paid.

Its the way it was done with the Civil Rights Act and it was the way it should be done here.

Either that or invoke the nuclear option. If it was good enough for Cheney its good enough for Obama.

[Vinnie From Indy]

7. Well if we had a President Kucinich, we would have much bigger problems

First of all we would be in a dire extinction level event from all the monkeys flying out people's asses and blotting out the sunlight sending the Earth into catastrophic period of global cooling.

[ZombieHorde]

8. By constantly selling the benifits of the PO to the American people.

Hire a swarm of marketers and sloganeers.

By rebutting all attacks against the PO on a regular basis.

THEN
By threatening to veto any bill which does not have a PO, and do so.

If this does not work, attach the PO to the war funding bills. Threaten to veto any war bill which does not have a PO, then do so.

[begin_within]

9. Make it look like an accident.

[Walk away]

10. I can think of at least one candidate who could have kicked...

Lieberman's butt easy. There never was and never will be a chance of Dennis Kucinch being president. This kind of stuff takes a politician with balls and backroom killer instinct. That was supposed to be Rahm's job but he doesn't seem to care about much but Wall Street bailouts. Our current president doesn't seem to want to get in the fight.

[G_j]

22. "never will be a chance of Dennis Kucinch being president" Why?

Because people insist on repeating that like a mantra! The DLC and the media have been doing it to DK for years.
And for years, I've come to DU and heard it repeated over and over.."unelectable" You are right, he has little chance, as long as people like you keep repeating it!

:mad:

[Walk away]

48. You actually believe that Dennis Kucinch has any chance of...

being elected POTUS? I'm sorry, we could all write "President Kucinich" on the board a million times and it would not change the fact that his base is a small percentage of the most liberal segment of the Democratic party. He's a great guy and he tells the truth but honesty.....can you imagine any scenario in which Independents and Moderate Dems vote for him. I think even Palin would take that hand.

[elocs]

11. How did LBJ manage to get things done?

How did Bush manage to get things done when his majorities were smaller than what the Democrats have now? How about a "give 'em hell Harry!" attitude? How about not worrying if somebody does not like you?

How about our Democratic Senate not being a bunch on nicey-nice butt kissers with the likes of Lieberman? How about dispensing with the niceties and publicly calling Lieberman and the likes of him in the Democratic Party out?

[tekisui]

13. That is how to do it. Play fucking hardball. Kick ass, threaten,

intimidate, take power away, frame the story, own the story and make the moderates grovel for bread crumbs. When the bills go through, the moderates will be thanking the Dems for their re-election.

[WI_DEM]

18. Well for one thing LBJ had 68 Democratic Senators following his '64 landslide

and back in the 60's there were several "moderate/liberal" republicans who were willing to work with the Democrats. Now the GOP except for two is completely dominated by the right.

[Ozymanithrax]

15. We can not be ideologically pure and get a safe majority in the Senate.

We could change the rule, but from what I've read, the rules of the 111th congress state that 67 votes are needed to change the rules after a Senate Term has started. Though it was mentioned that the 67 votes might not stand up in the Supreme Court, any attempt to lower the number of votes needed to say 57 would lead to a challange by the Republicans. It would go to the SCOTUS for ajudication. By the time the Constitutional smoke cleared, whichever way it goes, the bill would have faile anyway.

But it appears that the Democrats could change the rules at the beginning of a term with only a majority vote. They could remove fillibuster, or better, reduce the votes to 57.

Woodrow Willon requested request a 2/3rd vote to end cloture in 1917. The number has changed since then, but Obama would be well within historical grounds to request such a change. But doing it now would be a pointless move due to the 67 vote rule.

[joeybee12]

21. Have a seance, summon LBJ.....

essentially bust balls...

[rudy23]

24. You're right, Obama did EVERYTHING HE COULD, DIDN'T HE?

Not actively working against Progressives when you're the most popular, most revered speaker in the free world would have been a start.

[FourScore]

25. First, by selling it better to the public

then either by reconciliation...

OR allowing the dissenters to actually filibuster AGAINST the PO while the majority of the American people are FOR it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. Here's what Reagan did--with a Democratic House no less

1. Go on TV

2. Explain your proposal in simple language. Make it sound like the greatest government initiative since the beginning of time (even if it's a clusterfuck).

3. Tell the audience that if they like the proposal, they should pester their Congresscritters to death.

[Cetacea]

33. Exactly. And Obama certainly has the charisma to do just that.

[jtrockville]

27. Why settle for the public option. SCORE SINGLE PAYER

Tout that score on EVERY Sunday talk show, and issue press releases every day. Once the citizenry understands it, they'll not put up with obstructionism.

[WI_DEM]

28. Oh, that will do it.

[jtrockville]

32. You never know until you TRY.

[Cleita]

39. Interestingly enough, I ran across a document from the CBO in 1993, a staff

memorandum, that analyzed four different systems of single payer universal health care using Medicare rates.

The study had been done at the request of the Ways and Means Committee back then and adjusted and updated some figures from a first study done in 1991.

The four systems analyzed were:

SP1, a single payer like our Medicare requiring co-payments.
SP2, A Canadian style system without co-pays.
AP3, An all-payer system that covers everyone, but only has Medicare cover the uninsured.
AP4, A plan like AP3 with coverage not being universal and those currently without insurance would remain uninsured.

The study is long and detailed and is of course in 1993 money, but it's interesting what they were able to come up with as to what these systems could cost. You can read it here:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/64xx/doc6442/93doc171.pdf

[jtrockville]

42. Yep, I've seen it.

DU'er Lasher posted it here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7223160#7223278

We desperately need to freshen the numbers. We need a CURRENT CBO score, particularly since health insurance premiums have SKYROCKETED since 1993.

[Cleita]

44. I'm terrible at math. I wonder if our more proficient DUers could

proportionately make an estimate of today's dollars and make it a little clearer for us mathtards. Maybe we could have something to shove into the face of our senators then.

[jtrockville]

45. Unfortunately, all the assumptions need to change.

None of the assumptions (such as how much we currently spend on health care) are the same now as they were then. Simply converting 1993 dollars to 2010 dollars isn't useful.

There's no getting around it: we need a fresh CBO score.

[Stinky The Clown]

34. Here are some thoughts on that specific topic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7235528

[Festivito]

36. DK expresses sensible things clearly, Obama is not bothering.

It's as simple as: 1 < 2.
One-trillion covers everyone for everything.
Two-trillion misses 50-million Americans.

It seems backward.
It's tough to get that through peoples heads.
The decision should be a no-brainer.

[Cleita]

37. A President Kucinich would not sign a bill that at the core was corrupted

by special interests. Congress would have to keep working on it until it was acceptable to him. Apparently, Obama will sign whatever the final version of the bill is, according to what we are reading, but we still don't know for sure. I'm hoping he surprises us and keeps sending it back until it's a bill that is actual health care reform and not corporate welfare for the health insurance and big PhRMA industries.

[librechik]

40. By reconciliation only, at this point

because changing the rules of the senate is not within our grasp at the moment. We don't have enough "real" Ds to make 60.

Schumer wants to split the bill into two parts, one which could be the medicare expansion (a budget bill) and one that had the insurance regulation in it. This is Howard Dean's suggestion too, though he didn't say it very well.

Tell your congresscritters that reconciliation is the bomb to blow up the filibuster stranglehold. Do it today!