Comments on: Senate aides say Reid doesn’t have the votes for opt-out public option

By: douvie

douvie — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 02:15:05 +0000

If Obama is so concerned that the votes do not exist for a public option, opt-out style, why the hell doesn't he arm twist. Isn't that his job? Lyndon Johnson, where are you now that we so desperately need a leader instead of this little girl scout.

By: douvie

douvie — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:15:05 +0000

By: douvie

douvie — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:15:05 +0000

By: DownriverDem

DownriverDem — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:28:30 +0000

When are “we the people” going to prevail? Support for the public option is over 60%.

Keep the calls and emails coming. They worked. We need to keep up the pressure.

By: davidrvelasquez

davidrvelasquez — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:04:21 +0000

Fuck the Times and their pro corporate slant. And fuck Olympia Snowe (we don't need the republicans for this).

Any healthcare overhaul bill that doesn't include a public option is a serious waste of time and money…and a betrayal of the american people.

By: damixaustex

damixaustex — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:45:36 +0000

Increase the number of Senators to 6 or 8 or 16 per state and give them term limits.

The Senate was devised when the total population was 3 or 4 million and life expectancy was 35.

I'm sure it was thought we needed to get the most out of wise old 30 year olds, but when they said no term limit they had no idea they were talking about a crusty 65-70 year old eventually making millions working in the Senate.
Senators become too powerful, too connected.

By: vlom2441

vlom2441 — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:00:45 +0000

In the nearly 21 years since the 1st Session of the 101st Congress in January 1989, Democrats and Republicans have evenly split control of the Senate, with about 10.5 years apiece. Although Republicans were more likely to pass legislation without 60 votes, both parties passed an equal amount of legislation — 418 bills for Democrats, 421 for Republicans.

Of the Democrats' 418 bills, just 31 — 7.4% — were passed with fewer than 60 votes. Meanwhile, of the Republicans' 421 bills, 55 — 13.1% — were passed with fewer than 60 votes.

These numbers put the lie to the claim that the Senate never passes legislation with fewer than 60 votes. In fact, they do regularly pass legislation with fewer than 60 votes, and Republicans have done so nearly twice as often as Democrats.

By: gmkuhn

gmkuhn — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:06:37 +0000

> Times: public option doesn't have the votes.

Of course public option has the votes.

As JB and RawStory reported on Oct 20, 57% of the public supports
public option.[1]

We are not confusing “senate votes” with “votes” are we?

Have we forgotten that the 16 most populous states are
downweighted so much in the US senate that these states'
68% of the US population only gets 32% of the senate vote?[2]

Have we forgotten that the 40 GOP senators who make public
option an issue represent only 33% of the population, while
the 60 DEM senators represent 67% of the population?

Without the undemocratic weighting of our population
in the US “senate”, we might have had a public option long ago.

The headline should say

Times: public option doesn't have the senate votes

And then we could start thinking: what are we going to do about that?

[1] http://rawstory.com/2009/10/clear-majority-publ...
[2] http://www.stmartinsystems.com/070831_US_CofC_educatio...
http://www.stmartinsystems.com/070831_US_CofC_educatio...

By: dan

dan — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:33:05 +0000

Only Democrats need sixty votes to avoid a non-existent filibuster. The GOP got to do their thing, with 50 plus Cheney. Remember the “nuclear option?”

By: False facts, coffee filters and composte | Orange Juice

False facts, coffee filters and composte | Orange Juice — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:06:11 +0000

[...] The Democrats don’t have 60 votes for even an opt-out public option in the Senate. They don’t have a single bipartisan vote and they don’t have Lieberman. They also dont have the Senator from Arkansas. And if they did pass a public option that way, it would turn into an opt-in public plan, where only Democrat governors with the cojones to face an angry independent crowd and a dissatisfied Democrat constituency would even go near it. [...]