“60 Votes” — It Was Always Bullshit

[kpete]

“60 Votes” — It Was Always Bullshit
By: Jane Hamsher Saturday January 23, 2010 10:00 am

One of the ways the administration tried to jam its PhRMA deal/Aetna bailout on the country was forcing a series of false choices onto the debate. Those who opposed this corrupt hijacking of the democratic process were told that the reality was, you gotta have 60 votes in the Senate. And Lieberman, Landrieu, Nelson and Lincoln stood firm, so you had to give them what they wanted.

It was that or nothing. What can you do? We hear “If only we didn’t have the filibuster” as frequently as we heard “if only we had 60 votes” when the Democrats didn’t own the war.

And now, we find out something that may surprise many (though probably not anyone who has watched politics for more than 6 months): it was all bullshit.

Part of the negotiations center on whether Reid can provide an ironclad guarantee that the Senate will not leave the House in the lurch, aides said. If the House agrees to pass the Senate bill with a companion measure — or a “cleanup” bill — to make fixes, they want to know that the Senate will indeed pass it, too.

There was some talk among Senate leadership on Thursday of putting together a letter signed by 51 Democratic senators pledging to pass a cleanup bill if the House would pass the Senate bill. But that effort fizzled when support for it didn’t materialize, insiders said.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31836_Page2.html#ixzz0dLZo3Csu%20.

...............

The 60 vote bar was always crap. Now that it only takes 51 votes to pass a public option (which the OpenLeft whip count says they have), they can’t clear that either. It’s all about kabuki — who gets to feign support for publicly popular legislation vs. who gets to take credit for bashing the hippies and killing it. The White House wants what it wants, and the Senate — largely insulated from the electoral consequences of the bill — is totally willing to sacrifice those in the House who are much more vulnerable in order to give it to them.

.........................

Meet 51: it’s the new 60.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/23/60-votes-it-was-always-bullshit/

[GreenStormCloud]

1. That same 60 vote bar blocked the Thune Amendment.

For those who don't remember, the Thune Amendment would have forced a state that allows concealed carry pfermits for guns to recognize such licenses from other states. So states like New York, which has extremely restrictive policies on CCW licenses would have to allow residences of any of the shall-issue states, such as Pennsylvania to carry concealed in New York.

The Thune Amendment had 58 votes, but failed because it couldn't get 60.

The Senate should end filibusters completely.

[geckosfeet]

2. Dems couldn't do squat with it anyway.

[WeDidIt]

3. by Jane Hamsher

That's as far as I was willing to read.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

8. Agreed.

:hi:

[LoZoccolo]

11. :brofist: n/t

[Mojorabbit]

17. Amazing how many people are thrown under

the bus on this board. The hypocrisy abounds.

[kudzu22]

4. It does still take 60

to pass a public option, because it wasn't in the Senate bill. I'm not sure if that was the point of the article -- I can't seem to get FDL to load in my browser. They could try to get the house to pass the Senate bill and then "fix" it through budget reconciliation, but that approach has big problems. Pelosi says she doesn't have the votes to pass the Senate bill. And the "pass it now and fix it later" approach has never really led to anything good.

[Froward69]

5. I knew it!

and everyone said I was Crazy.

Well Know we know. regardless of the SCOUS decision. it appears the Senate is Bought and paid for. Regardless of party affiliation.

the Public Option WAS NEVER considered. :wtf:

[femrap]

6. There are very few

Dem Senators who are worth anything. I like Al and Sherrod....

[amborin]

9. agreed

[ProSense]

10. "Now that it only takes 51 votes to pass a public option" How completely ill-informed.

The public option is nothing with rest of the package. They passed the package first, which now makes it eaiser to add on.

[Leopolds Ghost]

12. Irrelevant. Would you buy a used car from 51 folk who won't sign a letter pledging a public option?

Not that I'm not glad they didn't since the "public option" is GARBAGE designed to mask the fact that the "option" would not be GUARANTEED and is just a sop to throw people who raise hell about being forced to purchase jacked up private insurance by the gov't, auto-style. They would be lectured about what bad parents they are, well before being given access to the "public option."

[ProSense]

15. Not irrelevant. n/t

[varelse]

13. "The public option is nothing with rest of the package."

Is this what you meant to say?

[gulfcoastliberal]

14. I want to know why Obama ordered congress not to allow states to set up their own single payer plans

That right there tells me that Obama could care less about people getting good, affordable coverage. There was absolutely no reason for him to do that - or to tax union plans instead of the wealthy. That smells like a really nasty right wing agenda.

[unkachuck]

16. they've totally wasted....

....our single-payer opportunity, now millions will die....it's a crime against humanity.

[area51]

20. +1

Every day, 273 people die due to lack of healthcare in the U.S.

[asdjrocky]

18. I remember the whole 60 vote thing coming up.

And I remembered thinking, why is this a big deal? Bush didn't have 60.

[Faryn Balyncd]

19. K& R..........There is only ONE honorable option for the House....KILL the damn corporatist bill !!!