Howard Dean on MTP: I would let this bill go to conference*. . .

[wndycty]

. . .which would mean to me that if he were in the Senate he would vote for it this week. Now granted he might hold out after conference*, but if he said he'd let this bill go to committee which means a hypothetical Sen. Howard Dean (DFA) he'd most likely be voting for it.

Dean is such a corporatist sell out whore. :sarcasm:

*ON EDIT: I meant to say "conference" instead of committee

[NNN0LHI]

1. Where did all the, "I stand with Howard" folks go?

Must be at church.

Don

[napi21]

3. I'm still here & still with Howard! n/t

[NNN0LHI]

14. I am pretty sure there was more than one of ya

[wndycty]

17. Exactly. . .

. . .this thread got up to six recommendations and is now back down to 1. Hmmmmmmm

[chimpymustgo]

19. Why are you LYING about what Dean said? He said HE WOULD NOT VOTE FOR THIS BILL AS IT IS!

Jesus Christ.

[wndycty]

21. I did not lie. . .he did say he would let the bill go to committee. . .

. . .prove to me I am lying. When the transcript is available I will share it. Will you apologize for accusing me of lying?

[KoKo]

26. He said he prefers the House Bill and it should go to Reconciliation to restore

better insurance protections and allowing the states to create their own form of Public Option. As it stands he said he would vote against the Senate Bill unless it can be fixed with tougher insurance company regulation which the House Bill has...although he'd like to see the House's language tightened even more.

[wndycty]

30. Yes/No question did he or did he not say he would let the bill go to conference?

Yes/No?

[madfloridian]

53. Ben Nelson said it might not go to conference.

How do you feel about that?

[NNN0LHI]

20. They only stood with the doctor when they thought it would hurt President Obama

When that scam stopped working for them they all pretty much sat down.

Don

[tridim]

38. This scam reminds me of the PUMA infiltration on DU last year.

Not calling anyone out, but the vibe of the whole thing is all too familiar.

[Bobbie Jo]

41. +1

[wndycty]

5. Oh they are here. . .at one point this thread had positive recommendations. . .

. . .now it is negative.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madokie]

43. I'm right fucking here

I don't change spots nor do I cave.

[madokie]

44. dupe

[phasma ex machina]

47. Present! nt

[napi21]

2. He's being realistic. I wish we had mmore in congress like him.

Can you imagine what all we could accomplish if guys like Dean & Sanders were to replace Lieberman, Nelson, Landreau, Nelson and Lincoln?

[still_one]

4. Of course he would. Why, because after it becomes law, it can be amended, which is a

heck of a lot easier than starting a bill from scratch

[girl gone mad]

15. It could also be made worse by amendment.

Most of us aren't foolish enough to support bad legislation on the nebulous grounds that it might some day in the future be made a little less bad.

[KoKo]

28. Dean said his biggest concern is that the Bill would never be Amended if the Senate Bill

is the one that becomes the final bill. He said the insurance companies already have one and they spent more money lobbying that McCain and Obama spent on their Campaign in the last election. The Senate Bill is not a good bill and Dean says it needs to go back to the House for reconciliation to put tougher language in that House Bill has and regulations on the Insurance Industries and allowing states to put in their OWN Public Option. That's what he said.

[stray cat]

6. If it can be made into a better bill is it wrong to at least try?

He is smart enough to see both the good and the bad in the bill and unlike most posters here I bet he even has read it.

[still_one]

9. Of course not, but they won't change it until after it becomes law, because the view is

that it would be much easier to amend it later, then to start from the start

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. I'm against it and I'd let it go to committee, too.

There's a small chance that it could be tweaked to become a net gain instead of a net loss.

[wndycty]

8. So you would agree that Senators who vote for it this week who let it go to committee...

...are not necessarily corporatist whores?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

12. Yes. Not necessarily.

But there's still a high likelihood.

[still_one]

11. I would be very surprised if there were any major changes. This strategy was all mapped out

before. That is why the bill was introduced in the House first

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

13. Agreed.

[still_one]

16. Forgetting about the merits or demerits of the bill, the actual strategy was brilliant

It is really a misrepresentation to imply that the Democrats have a majority, in Congress, especially the Senate, since the Democrats seldom agree on anything

Just looking at the whole process that they were even able to get something through is amazing to me

[sandnsea]

10. Yes, yes, he's evolved n/t

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Puglover]

22. He has said this since the day after he said

in it's present form he would vote to kill it. Where have you been? Nice try for some juicy flamebait though.

[Puglover]

23. He has said this since the day after he said

in it's present form he would vote to kill it. Where have you been? Nice try for some juicy flamebait though.

On edit:How I duped this, I have no idea.

[madfloridian]

45. Yes, I posted that below.

.

[dkf]

25. Very deceptive post

We get the process and he is doing a reverse Ben Nelson. He doesn't believe in the senate bill and he'd vote to get it into committee but if it comes back as the senate bill he'd terminate it.

[wndycty]

27. Really? Did he or did he not say he would let it go to conference. . .

. . .and if the hypothetical Sen. Howard Dean were in the Senate that would mean he would vote for it this week AND I also acknowledged in the OP that AFTER conference he might not support it.

[KoKo]

29. Going to conference to put back in the Houses tougher restrictions on

insurance companies (still not tough enough, but better than Senate he said) and to allow for states to put in their OWN public option. His worry is that the Senate Bill won't be reconciled with the House Bill..that it will be rammed through before Christmas. He does not support the Senate Bill because it's weak and gives everything to the insurance companies.

[wndycty]

31. So tell me again how I lied or misrepresented what he said. . .

. . .you are losing me.

1) He did say he would let it go to conference

2) I acknowledged that after conference he might not support it

So tell me again, how did I misrepresent what he said?

[KoKo]

34. You said he said if he were in Senate that he "would vote for the bill"...that's not what he said...

Quote from you:

".which would mean to me that if he were in the Senate he would vote for it this week"

[wndycty]

36. How else would the bill get to conference if hypothetical Senator Dean (DFA). . .

. . .didn't vote for it?

[KoKo]

40. I think you are confused about how the Bills and Votes work.

Reconciliation is different from sending the Senate Bill back to the Senate finance committee.

[wndycty]

58. To clarify he said he would send it to conference not committee. . .

. . .you will see I corrected that much earlier.

I understand very well how things work.

[phasma ex machina]

51. Strange things happen in a "hypothetical." nt

[Walk away]

33. I don't need Howard Dean to tell me that this bill is crap and that...

Our President has basically turned his back on the middle class liberals who elected him.

[WeDidIt]

32. This bill looks like it's a done deal

and will be a huge victory for the Democrats.

[donco6]

35. It's a done deal, all right.

They're still picking insurance corp pubes out of their mouths as we speak.

[KharmaTrain]

37. In Chess Terms: Checkmate

The bottom line is a defeat of this bill would be a major loss for the party on the whole and hamstring this Administration from doing much of anything else for the next year or longer. Dr. Dean has been critical of the bill and is frustrated just like many of us are, but he also sees a bigger picture here as to what a loss on this bill would mean on too many fronts. It's also the reasoning of Bernie Sanders, Paul Krugman and others. It's also a message to Progressives that there's work to be done to get our voice really heard. Dr. Dean was able to shake some people, but that's not enough...the problem boiled down to inside beltway games and egos and in the end, the Progressives didn't have the votes to get past the lobbyists.

[TwilightGardener]

39. I don't think he wants to be remembered as the guy who tried to

derail his party's reform bill, regardless of the merits of his position. Former DNC chair and all that.

[KharmaTrain]

56. In Some Ways He Succeded

I applaud Dr. Dean for speaking out the way he did and support his positions...always have. The adage is politics is the "art of the possible"...and in electoral terms one needs to show accomplishments. Who knows how this healthcare reform will shake out. It may actually help millions and be the platform for even more reforms...or it could be the sell-out some believe it to be. We do know the status quo can't stand...(yes, I know that's what the Administration is saying, but that's a fact). Now if this reform turns out to be a sell-out, we'll know it very quickly when our premiums rise and more are left with no or insufficient coverage. Thus one would hope there are some benefits in this bill that will at least put the current crisis in checkmate and make it possible to revise where necessary. A total retreat or defeat will make healtcare reform toxic...a majority of politicans will not want to go through this angst again in the near future.

[madfloridian]

42. Senate said it might not go to conference. Which would be bad.

I did not get to watch MTP yet, but from what you have posted it's fine he said it.

That would be opposed to NOT letting it go to conference, which would not allow changes from the house.

Why are you gloating over something like that?

Also on the first day he spoke out on this and it was posted at the Plum Line...he was never really saying kill it all.

"The gauntlet from Dean — whose voice on health care is well respected among liberals — will energize those on the left who are mobilizing against the bill, and make it tougher for liberals to embrace the emerging proposal. In an excerpt Kinzel gave me, Dean says:

“This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate. Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill.”

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/howard-dean-kill-the-senate-bill/

Did you see the post about his conference call with Wendell Potter yesterday?

He was certainly speaking out then.

You really are angry because someone dared question this bill.

That anger being directed toward those of us who have been noticing how they are selling us out in the bill.....is really making the divide deeper.

[madfloridian]

46. Was it Ben Nelson who said it only go to "limited" conference?

It was yesterday and it was threat by him that he was not done yet?

So which do you want? The Senate to be the final say or go to conference.

[shadowknows69]

48. Didn't watch the show so I'm not trusting to "what it means to you" just yet.

When I see the quote in context then I can make an informed judgement.

[asdjrocky]

49. You need to work on your comprehension skills.

Try to LISTEN. And let's face it, it wouldn't hurt for you to run down to the library and pick up a book on civics.

[wndycty]

55. How is my comprehension bad if he said he would send it to conference. . .

. . .meaning he wouldn't stall it or kill it, he would have to vote for it to send it conference if he were in the Senate.

[asdjrocky]

60. Read the responses in your own thread and you'll see what I mean.

[begin_within]

50. I just wish he had answered David Gregory's question firmly.

Gregory asked Dean, (these are approximately the words) "The question is, would you vote no on this bill without a public option in it?" I wish Dean had flatly and clearly said, "I would vote no." Instead he gave a kind of half-answer saying that the bill could be fixed or something, which was a disappointing answer to me. I want the old, blunt, resolute Dean back.

[madfloridian]

52. Sell out? Some of his words.

"senators beholden to the insurance lobby"

"insurance industry stocks at a 52 year high"

"this bill strengthens the insurance companies"

[laughingliberal]

59. ...and that the insurance industry wrote a great deal of this bill

it was obvious to me he wasn't talking about letting it go to conference so it can pass in its current form.

[madfloridian]

54. So are you are dividing this forum into anti-Dean, pro-Dean?

Instead of realizing that Obama has allowed the Conservadems to control the agenda?

Not wise.

[laughingliberal]

57. He also said it needs to change in conference and shouldn't pass in its current form

just a little clarifciation. Carry on.