It’s Hanukkah.
Specter should beat Lieberman over the head with a Menorah.

Unfortunately, the filibuster is one of the few means a minority has to protect itself from the tyranny of a majority. If the Republicans get in charge again, we are going to need it. I could see modifying it to apply to only certain types of legislation.

Dan the other possibility, to prevent a filibuster is to break the bill up into a few pieces. Put the regulation in IMMEDIATELY as it’s own bill and block the taxpayer cost arguments. The craft the other aspects separately.

I’d be happily willing to dispense with the filibuster and suffer the consequences of losing its power when Democrats become a minority. That’s called Democracy. Its hard enough to find 51 votes in a bought and paid for Senate for meaningful legislation, let alone 60. The filibuster is not in the spirit of the Constitution. We’re better off without it.

Specter seems to be coming around. Interestingly i read that specter said single payer should be discussed and sestak doesnt. I like single payer. I think its quite clear Specter is for public option.

Adam

The problem with your argument (that you’d be willing to accept the consequences of Republicans gaining majority control of the Senate after the filibuster is eliminated) is this. Unlike Democrats, the Republicans usually march in lockstep and vote as a cohesive partisan block — much more so than do the Dems. Thus it would be far more difficult to stop their legislative agenda, or to prevent them from undoing what the Dems had already done.

I don’t think that this necessarily dooms Democrats generally — there are a good number of House members who fought hard for a public option in their chamber’s version of the bill. Even Blue Dogs like Reps. Carney and Dahlkemper supported the public option in the House’s version.

Yes, I know that the “well, OUR version had it in there” argument is weak broth, but there is a case to be made by House members that they did everything they possibly could to keep the public option.

Anyway, the 2010 election ultimately comes down to how strong the economy is by then.

flynnbw

I agree that it’s rather early to begin writing an epitaph for the congressional Dems. Way too much time for things to happen which will affect the 2010 general election. The economy, especially jobs, is going to be a large factor. People tend to jump to conclusions well before most of the evidence is in.

On the other hand, the diluted version of healthcare insurance reform which it looks as if the congress will pass (if the progressives don’t follow Howard Dean abd mutiny) is going to lessen the enthusiasm of the base. Added to the diminished enthusiasm for Pres. O. due to his overly moderate record, there are reasons for concern. Look at the results of the judicial elections in 2009 in PA which resulted from a weak Democratic turnout — and put a very partisan Republican on the the state supreme court, also giving the Rs the majority on the court for the pending reapportionment process.

Eliminate the filibuster? Even the Democrats won’t be that hypocritical (in public, anyway). Do I need to remind you of the unprecedented filibusters blocking the Bush judicial nominees?

Can’t wait for Specter and Sestak to get in a fight over who wants ‘Single Payer’ more – Pat Toomey could campaign from the golf course and win in a landslide.

DaveB-
“Do I need to remind you of the unprecedented filibusters blocking the Bush judicial nominees?
”
“Unprecedented”, except for the blocking of more Clinton’s nominee. The GOP starting the “precedent” as far back as 1968.

“In fact, while Democratic senators used the filibuster to block 10 of Bush’s 229 first-term judicial nominees, it was Republicans who first initiated a filibuster against a judicial nominee in 1968, forcing Democratic president Lyndon Johnson to withdraw the nomination of Associate Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice. Moreover, the Republican-controlled Senate prevented approximately 60 of former president Bill Clinton’s nominees from receiving a vote on the Senate floor, and in many cases, even a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. And despite Democrats’ opposition to a few of Bush’s nominees, The Washington Post pointed out in a December 13, 2003, article that ‘confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds in most cases the first-term experience of presidents dating to Ronald Reagan.’ ”

Sestak wants single payer about as much as Toomey. Sestak’s been against single-payer since the day he announced back in 2006 (specifically highlighting it as a difference with the doctor who step aside as a candidate). Specter is merely open to it as an option deserving a hearing. The point for Specter is that he’s solidly behind the public option.
What’s Toomey’s plan? Oh, right, the GOP doesn’t have one.

Let’s see what the final health care package is before totally naysaying it — if it dramatically expands coverage while “bending the cost curve” in the long run, it should rightly be considered a significant accomplishment.

I favor the public option as a good tool to bring down costs, but I’m not sure exactly why liberals are SO tied to the public option in and of itself. If the Senate passes the part of the compromise (sans Medicare buy-in) wherein nationwide non-profit corporations are created that are able to use the power of OPM to negotiate on behalf of customers, that could be a great way to have a non-governmental alternative that has the same effect as the public plan.

Specter was so confident in August and more recently he could help get the votes for real health care reform. I’m still waiting for that.

Also, looks like Labor is about to have a field day with the Senate bill.