Joseph Lieberman (Scott J. Ferrell/CQ)
Al Franken’s win in the Minnesota Senate race presented a challenge to everyone who follows Congress closely: how to explain that, no, this doesn’t really mean the Democrats have 60 votes for everything. In a caucus that now spans the ideological spectrum from Franken on one end to
Arlen Specter on the other, the Democrats can’t actually do whatever they feel like doing.
But we’ve explained all this before, at great length. If only there was someone who could give us a fresh quote that really proves the point.
Thank you, Joe Lieberman.
In an interview with the New Haven Independent, Lieberman said he’s “skeptical” of the Democrats’ plans to include a government-run health program to compete with private insurers in the health care overhaul bill. Technically, Lieberman is an independent now, but he still caucuses with the Democrats, which is why they (allegedly) will control 60 votes once Franken is seated.
Lieberman doesn’t like the so-called public option on policy grounds, predicting that even though it might keep costs down, it might do so by underpaying doctors the way Medicaid does — which means it becomes that much harder for doctors to survive, and harder for patients to find doctors who will treat them. And on political grounds, Lieberman said, “I think we’re not going to get the votes to pass the overall bill if that becomes a condition of it.”
That may not be true if the Democrats try to pass the health care bill through budget reconciliation rules, which only require 51 votes for passage, not 60. But if the Democrats decide to go that route later this year, it means they’ve failed to write a health care bill with broad enough appeal to win all the votes they supposedly have on their side.
And we’re already seeing signs that the Democrats’ supporters aren’t about to cut them any slack if they can’t pass their agenda now — or if they have to make the kinds of compromises, on the public option and other issues, that progressives believe are no longer necessary. “Let’s do what the American people have asked Democrats to do, and let’s not use any excuses like this 60-vote nonsense, which is now obviously longer an issue,” Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos, said on MSNBC yesterday.
Sure, the statement proves Moulitsas doesn’t really understand the Senate. But there are lots of people who will agree with him. Until now, Democrats have used their lack of 60 votes to explain why they have to make concessions to Republicans in the Senate. Now, it’s going to be a lot harder to explain any concessions — even though there will be times when they still have to make them.
![[RSS]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
![[ARCHIVES]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/archives_icon.png){kind=icon}
Comments
They will have 60 votes when they vote to raise Senate pay.
Posted by: AmiBlue
| July 1, 2009 2:19 PM
Good one, AmiBlue. They'll also have 60 at minimum whenever they need to defeat term limits, increase accountability or lessen the advantages of incumbency.
Democrats, Republicans or otherwise, they're all united in their desire to prolong and perpetuate their hold on power, along with the perks that come along with it.
Posted by: billp
| July 1, 2009 2:40 PM
In Australia we have a wonderful system called Medicare. Conservatives have tried to sabotage it over the years. It is too electorally sensitive to touch. Your public option has a popularity of 76%. Which means you can have a similar public system as ours. Put pressure on as many wavering Democrats with the threat of replacing them at their next election. The health companies will not be treating the members nicely. The USA is the last developed country to introduce a public system. Don't settle for a second rate system!
Posted by: Chris B
| July 1, 2009 8:41 PM
I've always said that 60 in sense really is just a magic number. I mean the idea that Lieberman, Sanders, Ben Nelson, Warner, and Feingold were all gonna fall in line was, and still is wishful thinking.
For the Dems to govern effectively they'll need to build consensus, cooperate with their conservative/moderate members, and compromise when need be with the other side of the aisle. But most of all they need a strong leader who will not only seek consensus, but mold consensus and actually lead his party. President Obama is not doing that, he needs to know where to draw the line on certain issues, (like a Public option on health care), and frankly show some backbone when it comes to defending civil rights. I mean the overall majority of Americans back getting rid of "Don't ask, Don't tell" there is a consensus that we shouldn't be tossing people out of the military for being gay, expecially Linguists who speak Arabic. Our military is overextented why not embrace the legacy of Truman, while making sure our Military isn't throwing out soldiers who we need right now? This seems to be a win win issue, that simply needs a little backbone on the part of the President.
Leadership is what is needed on every issue, and yes even details matter, but those details can be hammered out through honest debate, and cooperation. But someone has to lead on principle and someone must draw the line. This is what the President must do if he doesn't want toothless/watered down legislation to be the symbol of his Administration.
"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat"
- Will Rogers
Posted by: Eisenhower
| July 2, 2009 12:26 AM
I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat! " - Will Rogers
Posted by: Eisenhower
| July 2, 2009 12:27 AM
Post A Comment