Lie: (Not Myth, Lie) We just didn't have the vote count for a public option.

[Political Heretic]

http://whipcongress.com/

51 senators will vote for a public option in reconciliation if it's sent over by the House

And of course the House Passed a bill WITH a public option in the first place. The Votes were there. It was Party leadership, as documented and reported over and over again, that shut down the public option, NOT a lack of votes.

Fuck man, we got the votes and we didn't even have the White House to go around and kick people in the crotch for it. We did it despite all their fucking resistance. Saying "the votes just weren't there" is a lie.

And as Rachel Maddow says, "it should be reported as such."

[4lbs]

1. The House could have re-presented it's bill that included a PO, that was passed already last year.

If there were truly 51 Senators for the PO, they could have voted on that.

It wouldn't have been an ultra-strong PO, but a PO nonetheless, that would have been part of the exchanges.

[Faryn Balyncd]

6. 58 of the 59 Senators who were ready to pass a bill with MC Buy In before WH pressured Reid to cave

....to Lieberman and drop the Medicare Buy In "because we only have 59 votes" are still in the Senate.


The only reason the Medicare Buy In was not in this bill is because the White House made a deal with the for-profit hospital industry.


Grayson's bill is window dressing for gutless "progressives" to sign on as co-sponsors for a bill going nowhere so they can claim to favor a Medicare Buy In, to cover for their shameless vote for a lobbyist written industry give-away.


The party I worked for does not have the guts to take on the cartel, but they have the gall to hand the middle class an unfunded mandate


(43% of Americans will be ineligible for subsidies, more will be forced into the individual market, which the CBO says will experience an ACCELERATION in premium inflation, even as the CBO optimistically predicts group rates will continue to inflate at the same astronomical rate, DESPITE the expansion in coverage and the resultant decline in uncompensated care)


When I turned on C-SPAN yesterday and saw a California Democratic representative shamelessly talking as if this bill was "taking on" the insurance industry, I felt nothing but nausea.


The Republicans have kept their hands clean, but after the voter backlash, the Republicans will NEVER reverse the unfunded mandate on the middle class.


Never have we seen a better example of why the corporate interests need two "opposing parties" of whores.

[Political Heretic]

8. excellent reminder additions!

[cui bono]

51. Agreed. What do you think would have happened if...

1) Obama never made those deals. Could the opposition's BS propaganda machine have been worse?

2) Congress passed a bill with the medicare buy in. Would Obama sign it?

[harmonicon]

56. well stated (nt)

[Lorien]

62. K & R for this post , too.

[stopbush]

63. Irrelevant. We needed 60 votes to pass the Senate version.

58 or 59 votes ain't 60.

[truedelphi]

67. Very goo d information there, FarynB

And it is worth repeating this part of it:

43% of Americans will be ineligible for subsidies, more will be forced into the individual market, which the CBO says will experience an ACCELERATION in premium inflation, even as the CBO optimistically predicts group rates will continue to inflate at the same astronomical rate, DESPITE the expansion in coverage and the resultant decline in uncompensated care.

[eridani]

2. ANY PO would have been very significant politically

Even though what was passed by the House was so truncated as to be neither public nor an option, passing ANYTHING with that name would have demonstrated the ability of 4/5 of the population to get something they wanted, if only nominally.

[Enthusiast]

9. Agreed. nt

[tomp]

69. imagine that: the people getting what they want through representative government!

what a concept!

note: it didn't happen.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[pampango]

4. We were almost "rescued" by those non-corporate whores, the republicans. Better luck next time.

Those brave repubs (who voted unanimously against it) did all the could to prevent this progressive "sell-out" (every member of the Progressive Caucus voted for it) but, alas, just didn't have the votes. ;)

[Faryn Balyncd]

5. There are 2 parties of corporate whores, & only one that will bear the backlash for this disaster...

The Republicans got the "reform" Limbaugh's favorite presidential candidate passed in Massachusetts, but got to keep their hands clean.

[Political Heretic]

7. I think there are plenty of corporate whores to go around. :/

(Hope "corporate whores" wasn't the post-deleted trigger.) :scared:

[kentuck]

10. But...

they did not have the 60 votes for the public option in the Senate to get the bill passed. That's the truth.

[laughingliberal]

11. But...

They do have 51 for it and it could have passed if added to the reconciliation bill. It can still pass if added to the reconciliation bill. But the White House wants their promise to the hospital industry honored.

Reid has promised Sanders, for agreeing NOT to introduce his PO amendment to the reconciliation bill, to bring a vote on the PO to the floor under reconciliation in the next couple of months. We need to keep the pressure on.

[rucky]

58. Would Sanders' bill be parallel to Grayson's in the House?

Would it need to be?

[Political Heretic]

14. They had 59 before they were SHUT DOWN, and didn't need 60 in the first place.

And that's the truth.

[kentuck]

19. If they could not get 60 votes, they could not stop the debate.

They would still be talking. Those are the rules in the Senate, whether we like them or not. There had to be deals made to get it out of the Senate. Otherwise, we are stuck with the status quo forever. At least now, we have a chance to make some changes.

[bvar22]

28. I wonder if Obama had tried that same tactics he used against Kucinich...

what would have been the outcome?

Obama seem all to happy to call it quits instead of Going After those votes....Chicago Style.

[Political Heretic]

35. They COULD get 60 votes, even though they only need 51 via reconciliation.

[obxhead]

54. they never needed 60, 51 would have done it

and let them filibuster. Eventually they'll give in. MAKE THEM DO IT. I'm sick of these empty threats we fucking cave to.

[xchrom]

12. Recommend

[blindpig]

13. Just goes to show....

There was certainly no political reason for this piece of crap bill, it would have been wildly popular among the working class, not withstanding the largely manufactured teabaggery. It was simply all about the money, as usual.

[Better Believe It]

15. K & R

[OhioChick]

16. Rec'd n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

17. I think it is no longer Kabuki Theater but Theater of the Absurd.

Corporatist masterminds did themselves really proud this time. The "Democrats" vote in a "Republican" bill which the "Republicans" denounce, and continue to keep up the false dichotomy that there are two separate political parties. It doesn't matter whom is railing after whom as long as the agenda is carried out and the people are lulled into believing that there are two separate parties and that we still have a Democracy.

Mission Accomplished.

:shrug:

[gkhouston]

18. K & R. Frankly, I'm wondering if the WH let this languish on purpose, to make

the bill easier to pass, and to let the HCR debate drag on into the fall, even after the current bill is signed into law. Perhaps Reid truly is going to take up the public option in a few months, as he's indicated. The GOP seems amazingly slow to figure out that campaigning against HCR is likely to be a losing proposition for them. The WH may well be steering the GOP onto a battleground of its own choosing (people-oriented, traditionally a Dem strength) and away from national security issues (Dems have been doing somewhat better here, but those numbers have softened lately) and, if possible, away from the economy (because turning that ocean liner before November ain't likely to happen).

[grantcart]

20. And your argument in getting a cloture vote with 51 votes is what exactly?

[amborin]

21. Rec'd; in the big picture, w/o a strong PO and w/ the mandate,

this bill's implications are along the lines of the recent horrid SCOTUS ruling. Granted, that ruling gives corps unprecedented new powers to intervene in elections and shape the discourse, and is monumentally bad. But this bill solidifies insurance corporations' grip on every individual. It forces every person to transact with a corporation. It would be nice to do an OP on this analogy.

[Uncle Joe]

22. I agree but the problem with a strong national public option being passed

is in it being too popular.

This would have made it more difficult for the more conservative wing of the Corporatist Party to climb back in to power, the corporatist wing of the Democratic Party needs it's fig leaves.

This all about sustaining the power of for profit corporations over the public or common good, whether it makes logical sense or not.

Thanks for the thread, Political Heretic.

[Motown_Johnny]

23. would the Parliamentarian allow a public option to be included in a reconciliation bill?

this just may be political cover for some (D)s

Saying you will vote yes on something you know will never be brought to a vote

[berni_mccoy]

24. Even Whipcongress.com was stalled at 45 Senators. They could not get 50 to support it.

"24 have signed a letter to Harry Reid asking for a public option in reconciliation.
19 have given statements to us, reporters, or their constituents. "
That's 43.
"4 more have made statements on video."
Right, one of those is Byrd voting on the Senate bill in December saying he's doing this for Teddy. Not only is it dispicable, but it's not Byrd's endorsement of the PO.
But I'll give them a couple here.

"And 4 are extremely likely based on their previous support for the public option and Senate leadership, even though they haven't made an official statement yet."
The 4 they are counting as likely have made no comment of support for the PO ever.

So, really, they are stuck at 45.

The fact they have 51 is a blatant lie.

[Uncle Joe]

25. If they could not get to 50, why would Durbin threaten to whip against it?

He would never have needed to whip against a non-existent threat, it would have died of natural causes.

[berni_mccoy]

29. Perhaps Durbin doesn't support a PO?

Which is even more fact that Whipcongress.com is full of hot-air on this.

[Uncle Joe]

34. I agree, he didn't support the P.O, but why threaten to whip against all amendments if he didn't

believe 50+ votes could be achieved if a P.O. were included?

Apparently Durbin believed there was such a strong possibility that he needed to threaten all other amendments.

[onenote]

26. some revisionist history going on here

First, when the issue first arose the Senate could not pass a bill with a public option because they couldn't get to 60 to cut off debate. That is a fact.

Second, while the House passed a bill with a public option in November, the votes to pass that same bill as part of a reconciilation package weren't there in March. The bill in August with the PO got 220 votes. One was from a repub, Cao, who voted against the non-publc option version last night. Anyone who thinks he'd have voted for a bill with public option last night is hallucinating. There were three Democrats that voted for the public option version that didn't vote for last night's version: Arcuri, Berry, and Space. Again, if you think that their votes against the bill last night were protest votes against the absence of a public option provision, I have a bridge to sell you. They chickened out from supporting any version and certainly wouldn't have supported a PO version. Finally, there were six no votes last November that voted yes last night. With the exception of Kucinich, none of them would have supported the bill last night if it had a public option.

So do the math: of the 219 votes cast for the bill last night, no more than 214 would've voted for a bill with a public option (and that assumes no other members that supported the PO version in November would have, like Arcuri, Berry and Space, chickened out and turned against the bill.

Folks can dream about "what ifs" all they want, but the cold hard political reality is there in the numbers. Show me where you get 216 for a public option version last night. Name names.

[bvar22]

30. If Obama had "gone to work" to get THOSE votes,

like he "went to work" on Kucinich, I wonder what could have happened.

[onenote]

31. you can fantasize about it

but the WH and Pelosi were pulling out all the stops to get Democrats who voted against the PO version to vote for the version that passed last night and still could only get five (not counting Kucinich, who as noted, I will concede as a vote for a PO version) to switch and they still lost three votes from those who supported the PO. Give me a reason -- any reason -- to think that any of the 30 plus Democrats who didn't support a PO version in November and didn't support the bill last night could've been flipped to support a PO version or that any of the five that switched from opposition to support for a non-PO version could've been flipped to support a PO version.

[Political Heretic]

39. Any reason?

Dennis Kuncinich

Sorry but the old tired talking points don't hold any water after watching the White House and leadership in action to whip vote when they needed them.

Ever see them in Democrats home congressional districts challenging them about a vote for a PO? Ever see them call them out in the media? Ever see them promise to refuse to campaign for any Democrat who opposes a PO? Ever see them call democrats one by one to private meetings with the President to pressure/demand that they vote for a PO?

The reality we've just see, about what Democrats can do when they WANT to, makes your fantasy spin transparently horse shit.

We had more than enough support in the house, and more than enough base support in the Senate. The only thing that was missing was the WILL of our LEADERS to push it on home.

And you can talk until your blue in the face and it won't make the lying about this any more true.

[onenote]

42. sorry but Dennis doesn't help your argument at all

He always supported PO. He didn't think the bill went far enough. Its a lot easier to convince someone who thinks a bill is going in a right direction but doesn't go far enough to take a step forward with the hope progress can be made in the future. Its a completely different ballgame trying to convince someone who thinks a bill goes too far as it to support a version that goes even further since there is no way they're going to believe they can get it rolled back down the line.

Again, one name, just one, of a democrat who didn't support the bill with or without the PO who you think could've been convinced to support it with a PO.

Consider Arcuri -- he supported the bill in Nov with the PO but chickened out and went aganist the bill last night, not because of the absence of PO but because he was afraid to support it. He was leaned on heaviliy, including by labor, in his district, but he still refused.

[Political Heretic]

36. Bullshit.

This whole "the votes weren't there" crap is nonsense. Where are the votes for a public option? Well first of all the house PASSED a bill with a public option already. Second of all, the votes are the same place the were when they needed to pass this POS and didn't have the votes.....

Leadership and the White House kicked a bunch of democrats in the crotch and strong armeded them into voting for this bill. They even caved Dennis Kuncinich - the "uncavable." Don't fucking tell me "the votes weren't there" because we all know what a steaming pile of bull shit that is.

[onenote]

43. as explained, five votes for the PO version dropped off last night

Even though last night's version didn't have a PO and even though those members were worked over pretty strongly to get them to vote for the version last night. It wasn't for lack of trying, they just couldn't get them to switch.

So if Arcuri couldn't be persuaded, despite threats from labor, to support the bill last night without the PO, why do you think he, or anyone else who chickened out could've been persuaded to support a PO version last night?

[flyarm]

50. they didn't drop off, they were treated to the thought of being pushed off a cliff

if they continued to support the Public Option..count on that!

[Individualist]

27. K&R

[LostInAnomie]

32. It's fun to dream, isn't it.

There's a world of difference between statements and "likely" and actual votes.

[EFerrari]

33. The President didn't want to be disruptive. He said so himself.

What vote?

[LostInAnomie]

37. The votes that wouldn't have been there.

A lot of people on here like to dream that the Senate is full of incognito liberals that are just chomping at the bit to vote for a PO or single payer if only someone were to wave it in front of them. That is simply not true. The Senate and House whips know their members enough to know what they can actually get. It wouldn't have mattered if Obama would have dusted off his fabled "bully pulpit", they would have never actually passed a PO.

[EFerrari]

38. What vote? I'm not a dreamer, thanks. There was never going to be a real discussion,

let alone a vote. If you think so, YOU are dreaming.

[Political Heretic]

40. That's your "dream" of an opinion.

Based on zero facts.

What we know, based on facts, is that Democratic leadership worked against a public option. It's not that they "couldn't" do something, as facts show they were in a better vote count position in both houses on a PO than they were on overall health care bill at times. It's that they didn't want to do it.

[Uncle Joe]

41. Why would Durbin threaten to whip against all amendments if the P.O. was there, unless he

believed there could be enough votes?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7898669

[cui bono]

52. Well he was the one who allowed all the disruption.

He shouldn't have taken single payer off the table before he even started anything. He shouldn't have made back door deals and he should have been out there talking to the people from day 1 instead of waiting until a few weeks ago. He should have been framing the issue instead of letting the TeaBaggers do it. Hell, he should have had most Americans on his side before that recess and possibly even had the bill passed before all that ugliness erupted. He blew it. He is the reason we do not have cost control, PO or medicare buy in. The people would have demanded it if he was out there talking about it like he cared about us. Instead he made sure to court big pharma etc... Blech.

[Individualist]

57. Hear, hear!

[LWolf]

44. K & R nt

[mdmc]

45. I don't think that there are 51 non-corporatist in the Senate

Do you?

[blindpig]

70. True, but....

I think the point is that an effort was not even made, the 'bully pulpit' was not even employed in this matter, not even a peep at building public support. This, I think, displays the intent of the administration.

[Festivito]

46. Oh! What did Pelosi say. So many threads praising her?!

Oh yeah. She said impeachment was off the table and that single-payer was too.

And, just before some vote the operatives come out and praise her so she looks good to us.

[troubledamerican]

47. Unrecs being given for revealing a fact... Says a lot about DU

[thotzRthingz]

48. the topic title says it all... thanks for not letting this TRUTH die a silent death... K&R (n/t)

[flyarm]

49. well the "STOCK" OF THOSE WANTING THIS BILL went up today in Big Pharma and the Hospital corps..

be sure to congradulate :sarcasm: those on DU that surely got a big bonus for selling this piece of shit to you and helped sell out your health care..their stock portfolio's just got a big boost!! for sure. Something we will all pay dearly for..for a long time to come!

[SlingBlade]

53. Thanks Political Heretic for the TRUTH ! K & R

[colsohlibgal]

55. Obama Did Not Want Real Reform

He came right out and said it recently. Had he hit the ground running in January 09 and pushed a single payer system with all his original clout and with none of the bi partisan time wasting, political capital wasting BS, slam dunk.

Obama's no progressive, he just played one during his campaign.

[upi402]

60. Delete the DLC, I tell ya

I want my damn party back so bad:mad:

[Greyhound]

59. That's what kills me about this fiasco.

But let's party for now, it no longer matters because it's done. Tomorrow we'll all wake up with a huge hangover and see this skeeze in the light of day.
:kick: & R & :toast::party:

[Mithreal]

61. Don't need to be an insider to know what Obama took off the table.

Don't need to look very hard for the truth about backroom dealings.

SP and PO advocates were kept at a distance because Wealth Care's interests had to be protected at all costs.

There exists a pattern. It's not just insurance.

PH, you know my take. These folks who want to challenge whipcongress.com and other work of Progressive activists have made themselves clear time after time. They have no passion to serve average Americans. They instead protect their masters.

Show up, people. This party is more ours than theirs. Find the tools.

[ihavenobias]

64. K & R n/t

[Hamlette]

65. but public option couldn't go through reconciliation by the rules of the Senate. If facts matter.

[pundaint]

66. Rachel has lost me in the last 3 weeks. Propaganda is propaganda, and she abandoned critical

listening for a party line as enthusiastically as any Fox Rebublibot.

[katandmoon]

68. K&R