The bedwetters at Politico, just published a story "Dems impasse on Health Bill" where they named Democrats against fixing Health Care Reform through Reconciliation.
In classic fear-trolling, they start the article
Democrats...ran into a wall of opposition from party moderates Tuesday — throwing into doubt...the sweeping reform plan...Reid could end up scrounging for votes...
Why would he have to scrounge for votes if all he needs is 50?
Well Politico says they've surveyed Dems and he has 8 that are no votes or have "serious reservations"
Do basic math. He can lose up to 9 votes, not 8.
Who are the 8?
Bayh, Liebermen, Nelson, Lincoln (no surprise there)= 4
So who are the fence sitters, the MAYBE's that the article names?
Pryor, Landrieu, Begich, McCaskill=8
8 is awfully close. We shouldn't be that close in my opinion, I think we need to make some phone calls to the "fence-sitters".
Join me below the fold for what they said.
McCaskill? Really? What did she say?
Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill said she would not rule out supporting reconciliation. But, she said, she was "not open" to using the maneuver for a comprehensive fix to the Senate bill. And regarding the more narrow, two-step process envisioned by Democratic leaders, McCaskill said: "I don’t think it’s a good idea."
Sounds like she's definitely on the fence about this, but judging by the lack of an ultimatum, she needs encouragement. Maybe she's waiting on the White House to signal her or talk to her about this. After all she was a big-time Obama surrogate and their friendship goes back a ways. Maybe she's waiting on us to call her and complain.
McClaskill's defended Health Care Reform on different occasions, but she's recently suggested she'd support breaking HCR into multiple bills (or as I call it Plan C). Saying things like she's "paying attention to the message voters sent", etc. These aren't encouraging comments.
next one: Mark Pryor.
Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor said reconciliation is "certainly not my first choice. I’m not real wild about using that procedure that way."
Honestly, Pryor's lack of commitment is not that much of a surprise, but his statement isn't exactly a ringing, "NO" like Lincoln's
"I will not accept any last-minute efforts to force changes to health insurance reform issues through budget reconciliation, and neither will Arkansans," Lincoln said.
The hypocrisy of Lincoln is ridiculous, she won't "force changes" through a 51 majority vote but she would if you needed 60? What's the difference isn't it still voting to "force changes"?
But we've talked about this a lot already here at DKOS.
Something tells me Senator Pryor doesn't want to insert himself too much into this debate. He's been relatively low-key through out this and he's seen first-hand the kind of damage to favorables that getting in the middle of HCR did to Lincoln. That doesn't mean he won't vote at the last minute. The ninja technique, if you will. Pryor definitely needs to know that we're watching him.
Sen. Mary Landrieu said she was "leaning against supporting" reconciliation
Landrieu, might already be gone. Her statement seems to suggest unless something forces her or really shakes up the scenario. In other words, Given right now how this appears, I'd vote no. Maybe we should remind her how horrible she looks taking the Louisiana Purchase.
Wouldn't Landrieu want to stand up and say, "You know what? You're right, that was wrong, I want to fix that."
Hopefully. Or maybe she'd prefer not to talk about it at all. Either way, I think every time she acts like she won't support HCR through reconcilation we should call her bluff and yell,"Louisiana Purchase!"
Now I'm not against Federal aid for States to pay for Medicaid, hell I think it's a great idea for all states. But I am pointing out that Landrieu withheld her vote for HCR until she got a gimme, a handout. Either way you cut it, that isn't very principled. I'm sure Landrieu doesn't like the "optics" of that situation.
Alaska Sen. Mark Begich said he had "strong reservations."
This is surprising at first glance, too. But Begich's state is indeed a strange place for a Democrat.
Begich's stance isn't very concrete either, but it suggests more of an invitiation for debate. As in, "I have strong reservations, what can you tell me to reassure my concerns?"
That's something I hope Senator Reid can work on with him. But we might want to hedge our bets here. I think we should let Senator Begich know that HCR isn't a Republican or Democrat issue, it's a humanitarian issue.
We need to continue pressuring these 4 wavering senators.
Oftentimes Senator Jim Webb has been known to oppose the Democrat agenda on mostly procedural issues. Indeed Webb has already sounded the alarm that the Mass election was a "referendum on health care".
If all the fence sitters plus Webb go, we are truly at a critical mass. Reid would only have 50 votes. Barely enough.
Who would be that last vote to kill HCR through reconciliation? Possibly Byrd. Maybe even Kent Conrad at this point, though he's already stated he's "open to the idea" of fixing HCR through Reconciliation.
The short story is we have to keep it up, because our margin of victory is pretty thin right now.