“60 Votes” — It Was Always Bullshit - Jane Hamsher/FDL

[WillyT]

“60 Votes” — It Was Always Bullshit
By: Jane Hamsher Saturday January 23, 2010 8:59 am

<snip>

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 now 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.

“The Senate moderates’ viewpoint is, ‘We passed our bill. We’re not going to spend three weeks on some other bill,’” said a Democratic lobbyist who represents clients pushing for reform.

So how many “moderates” are there now?

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.

Now the apologists are peddling the “it’s this or nothing” false choice about a bill that won’t even kick in for the next four years, as if their “60 vote” myth didn’t just explode. How is it suddenly Raul Grijalva’s fault if he stands firm and won’t accept a hideous bill crafted on the imperative of getting Joe Lieberman’s vote, which isn’t necessary any more?

Meet 51: it’s the new 60.

<snip>

Link: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/23/60-votes-it-was-always-bullshit/

Yep...

:banghead:

[leftstreet]

1. K&R

[NJmaverick]

2. "It was always bullshit"

which can describe anything written by Jane Hamsher

[azmouse]

4. +1

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Your logic is almost irresistible.

Almost.

[Fire1]

9. +10

[Missy Vixen]

14. Then why don't you start a blog that gets over a million hits a day?

I can't wait to see what you come up with. Then again, I'm sure it's never going to happen.

Jane's right. It's too goddamn bad you don't comprehend what you read.

:eyes:

[NJmaverick]

16. Free Republic gets a million hits a day, doesn't make any of the posts over there

right though:eyes: :eyes:

[Missy Vixen]

17. Again. You can't aspire to that standard, can you?

Why don't you tell me what is wrong with the above post? The fact she's pointing out that the Senate never had any intention of passing a health care reform bill that actually served the average American, or the fact that the Democratic "majority" in the Senate is, and always has been, bullshit?

If you think those obstructing any kind of meaningful reform are actually working for us, you might want to seek some kind of help.

:eyes:

[NJmaverick]

21. First off you are playing as fast and loose with the facts as Jane does

her blog gets on average 14,000 hits a day not the million you claimed. Secondly Jane has shot whatever credibility she may have had (not that she has a background that makers here an expert on any of the topics she rights for). In fact seeing ads for new bloggers to her sight, they only are required to agree with her rather than actually have a background or expertise in the field they will be writing on.

A blog like hers only shows that any unqualified, ill informed and illogical person and write a blog. Doens't mean that her views are in any way correct, accurate or worth reading.

Oh and here is the link that supports the 14,000 hits a day assertion

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/firedoglake.com?p=tgraph&r=home_home

[Missy Vixen]

27. Oh, my GOD. I got the visitors' count wrong!

So, sue me. :rofl: I look forward to fact-checking your posts from now on, too.

Again: You can't even approach what she does. You don't have the ability to drive 14 people to your site daily, let alone 14,000, and you're going to dismiss the thousands of stories Jane Hamsher, Christy Hardin Smith and Marcy (Emptywheel) have successfully reported on over the years over one story you disagree with.

>A blog like hers only shows that any unqualified, ill informed and illogical person and write a blog.<

Perhaps you should ask President Clinton why he thought Jane's blog (and opinions) were sufficiently important to invite her and other bloggers to a summit at his Harlem office. Maybe you should ask multiple candidates how important the campaign funds Firedoglake and other liberal bloggers raised for their campaigns are. You could also find out why Firedoglake is read by scores of elected officials and other media outlets.

Then again, you've already proven my point. You can't aspire to the standard, so you'd rather sit back and take potshots at something you could never accomplish on your own.

-MV

[NJmaverick]

28. You can't laugh off a factor of 100

[Luminous Animal]

36. I believe you are reporting on FDL's traffic rank not "hits a day".

[Occulus]

40. *SNORT* Alexa? SERIOUSLY?

You do know that that site only reports users that have the Alexa spyware installed, don't you?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Generator]

43. That was fucking nasty and mean

I see you are one of the great new Democrats that Obama has brought to us.

Yes, she signed one letter with fucking Grover Norquist so she should be reviled, hated and worse. And MOCKED for having cancer-because she's a SELL OUT because she actually believes what she writes. Democrats are getting you nothing. Guantanamo, torture, war, banks, presidential power, all the same crap as the previous leader.

Anyone that DARES to take on the contrived-right/left power is the enemy. Since Obama became president,Howard Dean, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Hamsher and all the rest are now the ENEMY on DU by some.

Keep on dreaming that huckster Republican in Democrat's clothing Obama will ever do anything for you.

Because he won't. He doesn't work for you. He never has and never will. Ever action he has taken proves it over and over and over again. In another time, some here would actually realize Karl Rove is the moral equivalent of Rahm Emmanuel-our dear Leader's right hand man. Which is what the letter with Norquist was about. But instead the fact that Hamsher has "fame" is what you worry about instead of the content of the character of the man your worship, President Obama.

[inna]

58. "nasty and mean", and incredibly ignorant and defamatory.

Sad to see such stuff on a (supposedly) progressive forum. :shrug:

[Luminous Animal]

47. How has she "sold out" to Norquist and the teabaggers?

[rudy23]

53. I feel very sorry for you. nt

[amborin]

34. DLCers hate Hamsher b/c she speaks the truth; not DLC memes n/t

[rudy23]

50. They can't speak outside of DLC memes. You won't see one anti-Jane statement you won't see 50 times

Posters can earn Rahmbucks for bashing Jane, just like they can with Dennis Kucinich, or any other lefty who steps outta line.

[amborin]

65. yes, exactly, lots

of ramhbucks earners here.....

[dflprincess]

69. Rahmbucks!

I love it...I'll probably be forced to steal it and use it myself on occasion.

:hi:

[rudy23]

76. Please do! nt

[donco6]

46. Until she writes something nice about Obama.

Then she'll be a goddess again.

[inna]

57. -1,000

LOL, what bullshit.

[sabrina 1]

74. Do you have something of value to say, like maybe

refute her points? What exactly is she wrong about?

What a totally worthless comment.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Yep. n/t

[inna]

67. love your avatar.

just wanted to say that. :)

[Joanne98]

6. Yeah.

[leveymg]

7. Just like "we've gotta pass the Senate Bill to get reconciliation" is the latest BS

The fact is, the Senate reconciles its Bill to the House version under Reconciliation, not the other way around. The "sidecar" arrangement is something they just made up to further drag out and make reform less likely to really happen.

The House doesn't have to do a thing. It already has a sorta okay HCR Bill. The current Senate Bill is poison.

[bain_sidhe]

29. Different reconciliation

the "reconciliation" you're talking about is the conference committe process. The "reconciliation" they're talking about is a budget reconciliation. Totally different thing.

[leveymg]

32. Look it up. That's reconciliation.

Come back later and explain if you want.

[bain_sidhe]

33. I have already explained it to you once

But you apparently didn't read my reply to your post a few days ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=140078&mesg_id=142465

To make it easy on you, I'll repeat myself:

The confusion comes from both processes using the word "reconcile."

Reconciling two bills, one passed by the House, and one passed by the Senate, is done by a Conference Committee which reports out a "reconciled" bill, and that's what you describe. Although you describe it incorrectly. The Conference Report (reconciled bill) CAN be filibustered.

What they're talking about is a *budget* reconciliation. This can only be done if a line in the actual budget bill authorized it. Luckily, the Budget bill passed by the Dems DOES have such an authorization. It can only pertain to budget items, such as taxes and spending, not regulations and setting up new programs and such. *THAT'S* the kind of "reconciliation bill" that only requires 50+1 votes to pass, because it cannot be filibustered.

What they're talking about here is passing the Senate bill as-is, then doing a separate bill to deal with the tax/payment issues under the "budget reconciliation" authority granted in this year's Budget bill.

And I'll add:

They decided against setting up a conference committee on the two different versions of the Health Care bill, going for the "ping-pong" instead. There won't BE a conference committee or *that* type of "reconciliation" for the health care bill. The Senate bill was to be the "ping." The House was supposed to modify it, which would be the "pong." That bill would then go back to the Senate for a vote. They're now scrapping the "ping-pong" strategy, because the modified bill can, and will, be filibustered.

Now they're talking about passing the Senate bill as is, which would make it the law when Obama signs it. Then the House would write a new, separate bill under the Reconciliation Instruction passed in the Budget, to "fix" the problems with the Senate bill, and send it to the Senate. That bill, because it's written persuant to a Reconciliation Instruction, can't be filibustered, and would require only 51 votes. But now, the Senate can't or won't guarantee that they'll have 51 votes to pass that separate "fix" bill. So, I'd suggest that they pass the "budget reconciliation" bill FIRST, and see if the Senate passes it, before they pass the Senate's version of the health care bill.

[leveymg]

39. Budget items are what the VP's Instruction says are budget items - you haven't disproven that

Yes, no doubt there are going be lots of Objections, but the fact remains that unless 60 Senators agree that an item is "extraneous" under the Byrd rule, the item will be referred to committee for reconciliation with the House Bill. There's a lot of elastic meaning about what's a budget item, and what isn't, and the VP has a lot of room to craft the Bill he wants.

What you're talking about is capitulating to those who put together the current Senate Bill that is unacceptable. If you are indeed correct, and there aren't 51 votes in the Senate to change that Bill, then HCR is dead. If there aren't 51 votes to substantially change the Bill, what's the point of doing an uncontested budget reconciliation, unless you're going to accept the appropriations in the Senate Bill unchanged?

If the House goes ahead and passes that Bill with no binding commitment for specific changes, then the Democratic majority is dead. By my lights, I'd rather sustain the majority and try again than to swallow a poison pill.

[tritsofme]

64. They would defer to the Senate parliamentarian to determine if the Byrd Rule

was satisfied. The VP doesn't get to build any bill he wants.

[leveymg]

73. Why defer to the Parliamentarian? Only if the other side has 60 votes to support an objection.

This was written last Spring at Brookings Institute. Democrats should have followed it: http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2009/0420_budget_mann.aspx

The best path would be to have reconciliation as an implicit or explicit threat: if Democrats can employ it to accomplish the policy goal with only a simple majority, Republicans may be persuaded to abandon efforts to use their 41 votes to just say no and instead engage the majority constructively to find common ground. But if that is not feasible, it is perfectly reasonable for Democrats to use the process for health care reform that both parties have used regularly for other major initiatives. The result might be more piecemeal and imperfect, but it would be better than the alternative of no bill at all.

Budget Reconciliation Bills Signed Into Law, 1980-2008 - (28 Laws)

[berni_mccoy]

8. Jane's serving Norquist's agenda quite well. K&U

[Larkspur]

10. Obama and Rahm are serving Norquist and the Corporate interests

They don't give a damn about the House Dems or us ordinary folks. Obama wants to be popular and Rahm wants to get a cushy corporate lobbying job once he's done with running for office.

[berni_mccoy]

11. LMFAO!

You'd rather believe that than face the fact that Hamsher IS WORKING WITH NORQUIST.

Hope-less.

[Dr.Phool]

12. Sounds like Obama is working FOR him. And Jack Abramoff.

They only dream of buying legislation like this.

[Dr.Phool]

13. Oops Double post..

But, saying it twice doesn't hurt.

[WonderGrunion]

26. It doesn't hurt. I tdoesn't make it true either.

n/m

[Lorien]

37. Bingo. nt

[Missy Vixen]

15. Jane's trying to point out the truth

Of course, those interested in doing nothing more than demonizing her have no interest in the truth.

:eyes:

[live love laugh]

44. Anybody who associates with treasonous folk like /norquist don't deserve to be heard.

Fuck Hamsher.

[rudy23]

51. Oh yeah, because you can't have POPULIST bipartisanship, only CORPORATE bipartisanship.

What about our president, and his bi-partisan debt comission?

Why do all the DLC clowns condemn association with the right, while Obama bends over backwards for Boehner and crew?

[Luminous Animal]

56. Then you will have to shut these liberals out, too.

They also signed a letter with Norquist:
Chris Bowers, founder, OpenLeft, Dean Baker, co-director, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Adam Green, co-founder, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Mark Cohen, executive director, Government Accountability Project, and Robert Weissman, president, Public Citizen.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/left-right-coalition-calls-for-an-audit-of-the-federal-reserve-before-bernanke-is-reappointed-as-chair-78372177.html

Are they all treasonous?

[DisgustedInMN]

75. Who the fuck left you in charge..

.. of who "deserves to be heard?"

Fuck that. I'll pass on your brand of dictatorship, thank you very much.

[live love laugh]

78. Uhhhhh OK. Stress much? nt

[jgraz]

31. Can you explain, specifically, how pushing the Public Option is "serving Norquist's agenda"?

Or were you just bloviating again?

[jgraz]

35. * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise *

I thought so. :eyes:

[JVS]

49. Whereas Obama is cool with a bipartisan panel to evaluate "entitlements" and some say nothing

[Luminous Animal]

48. And just what is Norquist's agenda that Jane is serving?

[rudy23]

52. They have no idea. It's a talking point, they know nothing past that.

These are robots, sent to attack anyone who threatens from the left. If she has cancer, then make that a talking point. Sickos.

[Luminous Animal]

60. Yep. It is pathetic the amount of energy that is expended towards

vague accusations and smears.

This discussions on this board board turn quickly devolve to a "mean girl" clique ; whereas ideas, information, and policy, the tools with which we can collectively organize around, are few and in between.

[slipslidingaway]

54. As others have asked please explain - also Hamsher on signing the letter with Norquist...

http://firedoglake.com/2009/12/23/why-i-reached-out-to-grover-norquist-on-fanniefreddie/

You collect signatures on letters like these to get media traction, to build pressure so someone has to take action. Kevin apparently didn’t read our letter — it’s about a bailout of Fannie/Freddie that they’re trying to jam through before the end of the year, nothing to do with health care. He also apparently slept through the past nine years when people on the right like Bob Barr, Grover Norquist and Bruce Fein were cosigning letters with ACLU civil libertarians all the time when it came to FISA, domestic spying and transparency. It was hard for them to do, because Bush sycophants dismissed them as “traitors” to the president.

For those with short memories: Here’s Wes Clarke, Mort Halperin, John Dean, John Podesta, Grover Norquist, Bruce Fein and Bob Barr on the Liberty and Security Protection Committee of the Constitution Project.

Here’s Alec Baldwin and Grover Norquist speaking on a PFAW panel in opposition to the Patriot Act. Grover cosigned an ACLU letter against the CAPPS airport spying system in 2003, opposed national ID cards with them in 2004, and supported Prof. Lyle Craker and marijuana grown for medical research in 2005. (And just for fun, here’s Kevin himself cheering on Bruce Fein for going after Roy Moore. Apparently that’s only supposed to cut one way.) For those who are strangers to the civil liberties/transparency world, this stuff has been happening for years right on this very blog.

They all know who Grover Norquist is and what his political history is. So do I. That’s not the point.

In this instance, the fact is that most “liberals” who work at institutions can’t step out and take a shot at Rahm, because Rahm would take it out on their organizations. That leaves the people on the right — those out of Rahm’s reach — who can be called upon to get the media “heft” you need to call attention to an issue. The year-end deadline for doubling the Fannie/Freddie commitment to $800 billion was fast approaching, and it’s hard as hell to get media traction on something over the holidays..."

[fascisthunter]

59. yet Obama and his admin seem to Embrace the economics Norquist Espouses

very right wing indeed. Interesting times we live in.

[inna]

68. what an ignorant and idiotic comment.

:thumbsdown:

[slipslidingaway]

82. Crickets!!!!!! n/t

[tritsofme]

18. Are the lies that this Hamsher character tell made out of ignorance or malice?

It's hard to tell sometimes.

51 is the "new 60" because we already got 60 on the Senate bill. Duh

Now if the House passes the Senate bill we can dust up some minor issues using reconcilliation. Reconcilliation is good for something like that, it would be a nighmare to put the whole bill through that process.

Is that very hard to understand?

[NJmaverick]

23. both

she is in no way shape or form qualified to write on the topics she writes on. So ignorance is always a factor. Beyond that her alliance with the tea baggers marks her as someone that has some malice in her soul.

[Lorien]

38. The bill in it's current form is a nightmare that the non-elite can't afford. nt

[tritsofme]

41. Well I think your assessment is garbage.

But that's beside the point.

The point is that it still takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass comprehensive reform, it wasn't "bullshit" as this Hamsher pretends.

[Luminous Animal]

55. It takes 51 votes. It has always taken 51 votes to pass a bill in the Senate.

We were told that, in order to avoid a filibuster (rather than respond to a real live actual filibuster), the bill needed to be watered down to being useless to gain 60 filibuster proof votes.

But, (like Bush's Republicans when passing tax cuts for the wealthy), the bill did not need to be neutered in order to avoid a filibuster. It could have been settled in reconciliation. Bills under reconciliation cannot be filibustered.

Bush & the republicans passed 10 major bills using reconciliation.

[tritsofme]

61. Bush needed to make his tax cuts sunset because they were passed through reconciliation.

It wasn't their first choice, they essentially ended up using reconciliation because there weren't 60 votes. They tried numerous times to round up the votes to make the tax cuts permanent, but always found themselves filibustered.

Tax cuts lend themselves well to the reconciliation process, they directly effect budget. Republicans got shut down when they tried to send ANWR drilling through reconciliation, it fell victim to the Byrd Rule, as would most insurance regulations and the meat of the HCR bill. We would need to restart the committee process and build a bill only to be gutted by the parliamentarian.

Whatever makes it though to the end product would still expire after 5 years if not renewed.

So once again, the OP is bullshit.

[Luminous Animal]

63. Nope. Tax cuts sunsets to avoid the Byrd rule by staying within PAYGO restrictions.

ANWR was stripped because of pressure from moderate House Republicans. The reconciliation language, in regards to ANWR, was purposely written to avoid the Byrd Rule.

[peace frog]

19. K&R

Tell it, Jane.

"Dogs bark, but the caravan passes on."

[valerief]

20. kick

:kick:

[Marr]

22. Hey, what do you know? The chess brigade was right!

They *are* playing chess! Just not against the Republicans.

[WonderGrunion]

24. Democrats had 60 votes, liberals did not.

And the more that liberals decide to sit out elections, the fewer votes they will have.

[fascisthunter]

62. lol... like in Massachusetts right?

[bertman]

70. You enjoyed saying that part about "the fewer votes THEY will have." didn't you Grunion?

[blindpig]

30. In fact...

it's all bullshit.

[howaboutme]

42. Jane Hamsher

one of the few who says it like it is. Unlike some in the DP she doesn't pretend to be for the people while being for the elite.

[slipslidingaway]

45. knr - also signed the petition at the bottom of the link n/t

[democracy1st]

66. K & R

[bertman]

71. I'm with Jane on this. Petition signed. Rec. nt

[bvar22]

72. K&R for Jane and Firedoglake.

Unlike Obama,
I DID campaign for The Democrats on a "Public Option like Medicare".

[Ganja Ninja]

77. K & R

[GinaMaria]

79. The 'This or Nothing' BS claim

When ever you hear it, just ask for proof that if we don't pass this piece of crap we will never get anything, not one little thing. They can't prove it. It's a made up claim to sound like desperation. It's the extreme black and white thinking typical of the alcoholic * administration. It's dysfunctional and toxic.

This whole thing has been bullshit from day 1. We need to do a little firing in DC. These are our employees. Are you happy with their performance? If I performed like this on the job, I wouldn't have a job.

[swilton]

80. Jane is Right - Three Cheers for Her and a Big Kilo Romeo

[Politicub]

81. They have hammered the 60 votes thing so much that

most people think it's true. It's insanity.