I guess it's not a huge shock, but the two biggest conservadems in the Senate aren't all that happy with Reid telling them that they're expected to vote for cloture on all Democratic bills, whether they're in favor of them or not.
From Talking Points Memos:
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) told Roll Call "I'm not a closed mind on cloture, but if it's an abuse of procedure, if it's somebody trying to put a poison pill into a bill, or if it's something that would be pre-emptive of Nebraska law, or something that rises to extraordinary circumstances, then I've always reserved the right to vote against cloture."
I'm not so sure what Nelson means by "pre-emptive of Nebraska law" but I guess the above is not all too unreasonable a basis for voting against cloture...assuming that "extraordinary circumstances" is truly "extraordinary circumstances" and not "I don't like this bill." Perhaps someone should ask Senator Nelson if having a public option meets his so-called "extraordinary circumstances" or any of this other reasons for refusing to vote to invoke cloture, and if so, why.
Meanwhile, Senator Landrieu is even more defiant, not even giving out reasons why she might still vote against cloture:
"I'm going to keep an open mind, but I am not committing to any procedural straitjackets one way or another," she said.
So it's basically "I'll vote however the hell I want, so buzz off." Perhaps someone will need to press the point to Senator Landrieu a bit harder that, you know, you can still vote against the damn bill even if you vote to invoke cloture.
Senator Reid, on the other hand, appears to be confident that he can pull the entire caucus of 60 together to vote for cloture on major bills:
"On procedural votes," he predicted, "we'll keep Democrats together."
Clearly it seems like Senators Ben Nelson and Landrieu are going to be his biggest troublemakers in actually getting 60 votes on cloture, and hopefully he's willing to go to the mat with his own caucus members if necessary to get to 60 votes.
Update
Elise points to an article below where Nelson apparently said that he is definitely open to voting for cloture, at least on health care reform:
Senator Ben Nelson, one of the key figures in the health care reform fight, has told a local official in his state that he could support cloture on a public plan for insurance coverage even if he opposed the bill itself.
...
And yet, even if Nelson were to oppose the final bill, his vote may not hold as much significance as expected. According to Pettigrew, the senator said he will not be the 60th Senator to sustain a filibuster on a bill that he ultimately would oppose. "If it comes to cloture I would vote for it," Nelson said, according to Pettigrew. "I will not be the deciding vote."
Asked for clarification, the senator's office offered a somewhat watered-down but largely concurring statement.
"Regarding cloture, the Senator's position is that he may support cloture even if he doesn't support some provisions of the underlying bill," said Jake Thompson, a spokesman for Nelson. "It is impossible to know how he will vote until he sees an actual bill, but it is correct to assume that he may support cloture even if he doesn't agree with some of the provisions of the bill."
If this is still his position, that would at least appear to be a good sign, at least on the health care bill, for Nelson.
Update 2
On the flip side, however, Evan Bayh apparently appears to be the worst offender of all:
Evan Bayh , a moderate from Indiana, said he would not be inclined to vote to cut off a filibuster on a bill if he opposed the substance of the underlying measure, and he predicted his colleagues would feel the same way.
"Most senators aren’t sheep," he said. "They don’t just go blindly along without thinking about things, and I don’t think we want them to do that."
Moderate? Moderates tend not to procedurally block their own party's agenda, even if they oppose a specific measure.