Steve Benen writes of favorable signs towards the passage of health care with a public option built in. He provides two articles, one on health care reform in the Senate and one on health care reform in the House.
Most of the recent news has been on the movement of health care reform through the Senate where the Blue Dogs have been building on the intransigent refusal to deal on health care in any way to shift the bill to the right and kill or water down the public option. What is beginning to happen now, though, is that Nancy Pelosi is beginning to set up the health care reform bill in the House so that it becomes a stronger platform to negotiate with the Senate when committees from the two houses get together to reconcile the different bills before sending the joint bill to the President for signature.
The public option has recovered from the days in August when it appeared nearly dead. It is now a lot more likely that it will be included in the final bill.go read the two articles. Start with the one on health care reform in the House.
Showing posts with label Pelosi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pelosi. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
The main event in Washington D.C. has started this month
Harry Reid has been reported today as telling the Conservative Democratic Senator Max Baucus (very powerful Finance Committee Chairman) to stop trying to compromise with the Republicans on the Health care public option and on the regressive tax on employer-supplied health benefits. This has surprised a lot of people who have a poor opinion of Harry Reid's spinal fortitude. If you are familiar with the way he stood up to Mob intimidation as a prosecutor, today's reported demand to Max Baucus shouldn't be a surprise. The real question ought to be "Why has he apparently let the conservatives and Republicans roll him all of this year." That's what is out of character. Here's my opinion.
Things have changed this month. Up until now this year the legislature has been involved in just keeping the government running, and the Republicans have been in the business of obstructing everything the Democrats attempt (which among other things is why so few of Obama's political appointees to fill plum book appointments have gotten votes and why Republican Senators keep putting holds on them.) But this is July. The health care bill is on the table for this month. The health care bill is the main event, unlike everything else that has come up before this month.
Obama, Reid and Pelosi between them have total responsibility to keep the government functioning in spite of the asinine and unified obstructionist actions and language of the Republicans as dominated by the talk show hosts. Obama has done a masterful job of playing the Republicans so that the only positions they could take to oppose him have been more self-destructive than effectively obstructionist on the large issues.
Between Pelosi and Reid, Pelosi has the easier job because of no filibuster. She still has to mollify the Blue Dogs who are almost as skittish as the Republicans because they fear the next primary. So Pelosi has compromised with both the Republicans and the Blue Dogs to a greater extent than any of us like at all.
Reid with only 59 Democrats until today as well as the filibuster which the Republicans are only mildly hesitant to use was in much worse situation than Pelosi. I'd bet he has been counting votes very closely and keeping the conservative Democratic Senators mollified.
But two things have just changed. Al Franken was sworn in today and the big initiative - health care - is in the balance. This is once in a lifetime, not just in a political career. I'm more and more convinced that the three top Democrats - Obama, Reid and Pelosi, have been gearing everything to powering the health care bill into enactment this year. That's the reason for the refusal to accept delays, and I think they have allowed some things to be enacted that they hate (I know I do) so as to not waste Presidential power on secondary issues. But now we are in the main bout. If I am right, then the gloves are going to come off.
We'll get only hints of the machinations because they aren't even inside the beltway. They are inside the Senate and House. and the Press mostly hasn't a clue, and the ones who have read Richard E. Neustadt's book "Presidential Power" will find that it runs counter to the permitted media narrative. But some reporter with inside connections on the Hill and the smarts to apply Neaustadt's teachings to the analysis has one Hell of a great book to write, much like Ted Sorenson's "Making of the President."
I won't guarantee this, of course, nor do I have original reporting to confirm it. But I've read Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents, the first edition of which was published in 1960, and which JFK was reported to have read between the election and his inauguration. Neustadt essentially wrote the the President's power is limited, and it grows with each win that he is responsible for and is diminished by each loss. Obama has essentially kept his hands off of most of the things that come from Congress, so his loss has been minimal. On the positive side, the three of them have been setting things up specifically for health care, with the Budget powers to avoid a filibuster if necessary and the rapid schedule set so that the bill is dealt with when Obama's power as an incoming President with a solid majority is at its height. The fact that Reid has not stood for any delays in the schedule for completing health care is an indication of how the three are husbanding their resources.
I really think that the power the three have been husbanding all year is about to come unleashed. When it comes down to the crunch, the health care vote is going to be the first mandatory party-line vote this year. Up until now, the Democratic defectors have gotten a "gimme." Not this time. And for those who go with the Party voting for health care and find it damages their prospects for surviving their next Primary, the Party will provide the kinds of support needed to get a win in that primary. They did it for Lieberman, to the disgust of many of us. Is this why?
As I say, I won't guarantee this scenario, but I really think I see is coming together. If so, we are about to see it work out. I sure hope I am right.
Things have changed this month. Up until now this year the legislature has been involved in just keeping the government running, and the Republicans have been in the business of obstructing everything the Democrats attempt (which among other things is why so few of Obama's political appointees to fill plum book appointments have gotten votes and why Republican Senators keep putting holds on them.) But this is July. The health care bill is on the table for this month. The health care bill is the main event, unlike everything else that has come up before this month.
Obama, Reid and Pelosi between them have total responsibility to keep the government functioning in spite of the asinine and unified obstructionist actions and language of the Republicans as dominated by the talk show hosts. Obama has done a masterful job of playing the Republicans so that the only positions they could take to oppose him have been more self-destructive than effectively obstructionist on the large issues.
Between Pelosi and Reid, Pelosi has the easier job because of no filibuster. She still has to mollify the Blue Dogs who are almost as skittish as the Republicans because they fear the next primary. So Pelosi has compromised with both the Republicans and the Blue Dogs to a greater extent than any of us like at all.
Reid with only 59 Democrats until today as well as the filibuster which the Republicans are only mildly hesitant to use was in much worse situation than Pelosi. I'd bet he has been counting votes very closely and keeping the conservative Democratic Senators mollified.
But two things have just changed. Al Franken was sworn in today and the big initiative - health care - is in the balance. This is once in a lifetime, not just in a political career. I'm more and more convinced that the three top Democrats - Obama, Reid and Pelosi, have been gearing everything to powering the health care bill into enactment this year. That's the reason for the refusal to accept delays, and I think they have allowed some things to be enacted that they hate (I know I do) so as to not waste Presidential power on secondary issues. But now we are in the main bout. If I am right, then the gloves are going to come off.
We'll get only hints of the machinations because they aren't even inside the beltway. They are inside the Senate and House. and the Press mostly hasn't a clue, and the ones who have read Richard E. Neustadt's book "Presidential Power" will find that it runs counter to the permitted media narrative. But some reporter with inside connections on the Hill and the smarts to apply Neaustadt's teachings to the analysis has one Hell of a great book to write, much like Ted Sorenson's "Making of the President."
I won't guarantee this, of course, nor do I have original reporting to confirm it. But I've read Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents, the first edition of which was published in 1960, and which JFK was reported to have read between the election and his inauguration. Neustadt essentially wrote the the President's power is limited, and it grows with each win that he is responsible for and is diminished by each loss. Obama has essentially kept his hands off of most of the things that come from Congress, so his loss has been minimal. On the positive side, the three of them have been setting things up specifically for health care, with the Budget powers to avoid a filibuster if necessary and the rapid schedule set so that the bill is dealt with when Obama's power as an incoming President with a solid majority is at its height. The fact that Reid has not stood for any delays in the schedule for completing health care is an indication of how the three are husbanding their resources.
I really think that the power the three have been husbanding all year is about to come unleashed. When it comes down to the crunch, the health care vote is going to be the first mandatory party-line vote this year. Up until now, the Democratic defectors have gotten a "gimme." Not this time. And for those who go with the Party voting for health care and find it damages their prospects for surviving their next Primary, the Party will provide the kinds of support needed to get a win in that primary. They did it for Lieberman, to the disgust of many of us. Is this why?
As I say, I won't guarantee this scenario, but I really think I see is coming together. If so, we are about to see it work out. I sure hope I am right.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Girding for the health care fight to come
In the House, Pelosi is setting up for the fight to pass health care. Where as recently as January the major health care supporters were not meeting with each other or with outsiders, this has changed. Now they are holding roundtables and hearings. Speaker Pelosi has gotten behind the effort to organize and pass health care this year, and it shows. According to Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic:
The three committees with jurisdiction--Energy and Commerce, Education and Labor, Ways and Means--are working together at both the staff and membership levels. They say they will work together on passing one, unified bill--and doing so by July 31, assuming the Senate can pass its bill by then as well. (If not, I'm told, the House will slow things down, figuring it makes no sense to create a target for critics before the Senate has passed its version.)But it's not without opposition, even this early.
Last week, the Blue Dogs protested that they weren't having enough influence over the process. Bigger fights will erupt, perhaps in the very near future, particularly given the huge issues still to be decided--how to pay for reform, how to build a public plan, how to assist people struggling to afford coverage, and so on.Cohn's article may look like a Paean to Nancy Pelosi, but if health care gets passed this year then it is going to be as much the responsibility Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as it is of Barack Obama. Obama is responsible for the public opinion; Reid and Pelosi are responsible for 99 and 434 members of their respective Houses. It's going to take all three.
But the House has already taken this common effort farther than it did in 1994. Credit the favorable political environment and a more chastened Democratic caucus. Credit, too, the committee chairmen and their staffs, who are working overtime to produce legislation this summer. (That's particularly true in Henry Waxman's office, where they're also cranking out a climate change bill.) But don't forget to credit the leadership, starting with Pelosi.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Re: Pelosi torture briefing - so what?
There's been a lot of talk, primarily by right-wingers who want to defend their support of the use of torture on captives, that then minority leader Nancy Pelosi was somehow briefed that the CIA was using maybe planned to use enhanced questioning techniques to get Intelligence about terrorists and proposed terrorism acts.
Vicki Divoll [*], in an OpEd published in the New York Times, points out that there is no legally constituted body called "The Gang of Four" to begin with. Even assuming that the CIA did actually honestly brief Rep. Pelosi about the proposed use of waterboarding (it's not at all certain that they did) she was restricted from telling any of her colleagues about it. What was she supposed to do with the information if it was actually given to her?
The Constitution gives "...aggregate, not individual, powers to the legislative branch." The minority leader is relatively powerless in the first place. With the restrictions placed on communicating any information actually provided to any other member of Congress, there was nothing she could have done.
I'd also point out that there is no way of showing that the CIA actually told her anything. The so-called memo does not have any credibility since the CIA does not present the person who wrote it and placed it in the files. That could easily have been done last week, and with the CIA very invested in deflecting blame from themselves and also with the CIA populated by people whose normal job description includes large measures lying to the various publics to manipulate political responses, they are innately under suspicion. The fact that Sen. Mel Martinez also says he was not briefed on the use of actual torture techniques adds credibility to Rep. Nancy Pelosi's denial that she was briefed.
But the while the fact that Nancy Pelosi was briefed in a timely manner on the use of torture techniques by the CIA is very much in doubt, that doesn't matter. With the restrictions on her communication to other in Congress even if she was briefed, there was nothing she had any power to do with the information. The whole issue is right-wing deflection of blame from anyone who actually is responsible to someone else who could not have been responsible.
The real question is whether there was a crime committed (almost certain) and if so, who might be prosecuted for such a crime (less certain.)
A second and perhaps even more important question, as become whether Dick Cheney and his evil twin, David Addington, were actually attempting to justify the then proposed invasion of Iraq by torturing false confessions that purported to prove a link between Sadaam Hussein and al Qaeda. It is now well-known that torture does not elicit useful Intelligence. It instead forces the victim of torture to say whatever the torturer wants to hear just to make the torture stop. So while torture is effectively useless as an Intelligence-gathering tool, it is excellent for creating false confessions that can be used to justify actions the torturer wants the public to support.
It now appears that Dick Cheney's defense of torture as a way of gathering Intelligence is actually a cover-up of his office's pressure to torture confessions that justified Cheney's belief that Sadaam was allied with al Qaeda and had nuclear weapons. That makes the torture of prisoners at his clear direction the equivalent of the discredited "Italian Letter" that purported to show that Iraq was getting Yellow cake unranium to build nukes. In fact, the next question that should be revived was whether Ahmed Chalibi was the point-man who the Iranians used to run a highly successful Intelligence scam on Dick Cheney and his right-wing allies like the columnists/propagandists Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer.
Compared to all these real questions, the idea that because Nancy Pelosi might have been briefed on the CIA's use of torture techniques is nothing more than an irrelevant distraction. It is pure right-wing propaganda designed and pushed to prevent the real criminals from being identified and punished.
[*] Vicki Divoli is former CIA CTC deputy general counsel. She knows what she is talking about.
Laura Rozen has a very good analysis of all the events that have led to the current attacks on Nancy Pelosi and to her spirited pushback. The entire briefing process and its misuse and the lies apparently told by the CIA go back to the office of the Vice President and Dick Cheney.
Vicki Divoll [*], in an OpEd published in the New York Times, points out that there is no legally constituted body called "The Gang of Four" to begin with. Even assuming that the CIA did actually honestly brief Rep. Pelosi about the proposed use of waterboarding (it's not at all certain that they did) she was restricted from telling any of her colleagues about it. What was she supposed to do with the information if it was actually given to her?
The Constitution gives "...aggregate, not individual, powers to the legislative branch." The minority leader is relatively powerless in the first place. With the restrictions placed on communicating any information actually provided to any other member of Congress, there was nothing she could have done.
I'd also point out that there is no way of showing that the CIA actually told her anything. The so-called memo does not have any credibility since the CIA does not present the person who wrote it and placed it in the files. That could easily have been done last week, and with the CIA very invested in deflecting blame from themselves and also with the CIA populated by people whose normal job description includes large measures lying to the various publics to manipulate political responses, they are innately under suspicion. The fact that Sen. Mel Martinez also says he was not briefed on the use of actual torture techniques adds credibility to Rep. Nancy Pelosi's denial that she was briefed.
But the while the fact that Nancy Pelosi was briefed in a timely manner on the use of torture techniques by the CIA is very much in doubt, that doesn't matter. With the restrictions on her communication to other in Congress even if she was briefed, there was nothing she had any power to do with the information. The whole issue is right-wing deflection of blame from anyone who actually is responsible to someone else who could not have been responsible.
The real question is whether there was a crime committed (almost certain) and if so, who might be prosecuted for such a crime (less certain.)
A second and perhaps even more important question, as become whether Dick Cheney and his evil twin, David Addington, were actually attempting to justify the then proposed invasion of Iraq by torturing false confessions that purported to prove a link between Sadaam Hussein and al Qaeda. It is now well-known that torture does not elicit useful Intelligence. It instead forces the victim of torture to say whatever the torturer wants to hear just to make the torture stop. So while torture is effectively useless as an Intelligence-gathering tool, it is excellent for creating false confessions that can be used to justify actions the torturer wants the public to support.
It now appears that Dick Cheney's defense of torture as a way of gathering Intelligence is actually a cover-up of his office's pressure to torture confessions that justified Cheney's belief that Sadaam was allied with al Qaeda and had nuclear weapons. That makes the torture of prisoners at his clear direction the equivalent of the discredited "Italian Letter" that purported to show that Iraq was getting Yellow cake unranium to build nukes. In fact, the next question that should be revived was whether Ahmed Chalibi was the point-man who the Iranians used to run a highly successful Intelligence scam on Dick Cheney and his right-wing allies like the columnists/propagandists Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer.
Compared to all these real questions, the idea that because Nancy Pelosi might have been briefed on the CIA's use of torture techniques is nothing more than an irrelevant distraction. It is pure right-wing propaganda designed and pushed to prevent the real criminals from being identified and punished.
[*] Vicki Divoli is former CIA CTC deputy general counsel. She knows what she is talking about.
Laura Rozen has a very good analysis of all the events that have led to the current attacks on Nancy Pelosi and to her spirited pushback. The entire briefing process and its misuse and the lies apparently told by the CIA go back to the office of the Vice President and Dick Cheney.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Amazing - House Dems defend quaint rule of Law in opposition to Bush
I didn't think I'd see this. The Republicans are in the tank, and Bush/Cheney are nostalgic for a King who rules by the doctrine of the divine right of Kings. The Senate Dems, especially Sen. Jay Rockefeller (another sterling example that inherited wealth is bad for the character), have also bought into the process of destroying the Rule Of Law in America.
Apparently there remains a pocket of Americans in the House who understand that what has made America great has been the Republic under the American Constitution and the Rule of Law. The spokesman for America against the forces of darkness who control the White House is John Conyers (D-MI), supported by Nancy Pelosi. Conyers explains why the House Judiciary Committee has resoundingly rejected retroactive immunity for the telecoms. (From Paul Kiel)
The new Bill which is expected to replace the idea of retroactive immunity for crimes previously conducted by the telecoms at the demand of the Bush administration will instead give the courts authorization to hear the classified material at issue in the case. Paul Kiel describes it here.. The House is expected to vote on it sometime today, Thursday.
Apparently there remains a pocket of Americans in the House who understand that what has made America great has been the Republic under the American Constitution and the Rule of Law. The spokesman for America against the forces of darkness who control the White House is John Conyers (D-MI), supported by Nancy Pelosi. Conyers explains why the House Judiciary Committee has resoundingly rejected retroactive immunity for the telecoms. (From Paul Kiel)
the Administration has not established a valid and credible case justifying the extraordinary action of Congress enacting blanket retroactive immunity as set forth in the Senate bill."The full statement from the House Judiciary committee can be found here.
They cite a number of factors as to why it would be inadvisable to remove the issue from the courts and give the telecoms a free pass on lawsuits challenging the program. But the overarching reason seems to be that it's far from clear that the warrantless wiretapping program was legal, as the administration insists. In fact, they write, "our review of classified information has reinforced serious concerns about the potential illegality of the Administration’s actions in authorizing and carrying out its warrantless surveillance program."
The new Bill which is expected to replace the idea of retroactive immunity for crimes previously conducted by the telecoms at the demand of the Bush administration will instead give the courts authorization to hear the classified material at issue in the case. Paul Kiel describes it here.. The House is expected to vote on it sometime today, Thursday.
Friday, February 15, 2008
FISA: Senate Democrats lack cojones, forcing Pelosi to develp hers - Evolution at work?
After the Senate unsurprisingly caved in on the FISA bill Wednesday, it has gone back to the House, since the version they previously passed did not include telecom immunity. The Congressional Republicans, supported by Bush, have refused to allow another extension of the existing FISA law without telecom immunity, clearly intending to put pressure on the Democrats to cave in and permit the telecoms to avoid lawsuits for their earlier lawbreaking activities. So, lacking House concurrence with the Senate version, FISA will expire Friday evening.
What did Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats do? They adjourned the House for the long President's day weekend as previously planned.
Shocked House Republicans then walked out of the House proceedings since they weren't getting their way, and Bush whined that the Democrats were obstructing his actions as theKing of America Unitary Executive.
I am so damned tired of hearing an aggrieved Bush who feels he is not getting his way get on TV and whine about how bad he is being treated and how dangerous it supposedly is for America if we ignore his stupidities. And when he isn't whining, he is lecturing America on crap he himself is utterly clueless on. The man is barely literate, and somehow he is the expert who explains why everyone else is wrong? He doesn't know enough personally to question the aides who advise him and lacking that knowledge he doesn't know enough to appoint decent qualified aides.
Of course, the media is happy to report Bush's whine, without context or understanding that (A) the entire issue is made up by the Bush and the Republicans for political gain and is meaningless in terms of national security and (B) they ignore the real damage that the telecom immunity provision does to the American Rule of Law.
Michell Cottle at The New Republic points out how utterly out of it the media coverage on the FISA issue is. Her excellent example: "Every time Congressional Democrats do something Bush remotely doesn't like, he puts out an angry statement. It's like writing a story about the Capitol burning down and headlining it, "Many Cameramen Gather at Capitol." The media is so damned busy reporting what Bush whines that they don't even bother to find out what the Democrats really did and why. That's another example of the fact that Washington Reporters exist by rewriting handouts and stenographically reporting leaks instead of real reporting. It's clear that Washington reports as a group are paid way too much for what they actually do.
But we should all be proud of Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats. We need to see more of that kind of behavior where politicians put the needs of America above Bush's whines and the Republican Party's power plays and temper tantrums.
Go Nancy!
What did Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats do? They adjourned the House for the long President's day weekend as previously planned.
Shocked House Republicans then walked out of the House proceedings since they weren't getting their way, and Bush whined that the Democrats were obstructing his actions as the
I am so damned tired of hearing an aggrieved Bush who feels he is not getting his way get on TV and whine about how bad he is being treated and how dangerous it supposedly is for America if we ignore his stupidities. And when he isn't whining, he is lecturing America on crap he himself is utterly clueless on. The man is barely literate, and somehow he is the expert who explains why everyone else is wrong? He doesn't know enough personally to question the aides who advise him and lacking that knowledge he doesn't know enough to appoint decent qualified aides.
Of course, the media is happy to report Bush's whine, without context or understanding that (A) the entire issue is made up by the Bush and the Republicans for political gain and is meaningless in terms of national security and (B) they ignore the real damage that the telecom immunity provision does to the American Rule of Law.
Michell Cottle at The New Republic points out how utterly out of it the media coverage on the FISA issue is. Her excellent example: "Every time Congressional Democrats do something Bush remotely doesn't like, he puts out an angry statement. It's like writing a story about the Capitol burning down and headlining it, "Many Cameramen Gather at Capitol." The media is so damned busy reporting what Bush whines that they don't even bother to find out what the Democrats really did and why. That's another example of the fact that Washington Reporters exist by rewriting handouts and stenographically reporting leaks instead of real reporting. It's clear that Washington reports as a group are paid way too much for what they actually do.
But we should all be proud of Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats. We need to see more of that kind of behavior where politicians put the needs of America above Bush's whines and the Republican Party's power plays and temper tantrums.
Go Nancy!
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Reid, Pelosi warned Bush to expect a real fight.
Bush met at the White House with Congressional leaders today about the supplemental funding bill for the war in Iraq. Greg Sargent has what he calls some "color" from the confrontation:
This is going to be interesting.
A source familiar with the meeting -- at which no compromise of any kind was reached, though Speaker Nancy Pelosi said publicly today that it had been "productive" -- shares a few interesting tidbits. First, the source says, Bush bristled and was taken aback when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid compared the current situation to Vietnam; he also appeared irked by those who said the war couldn't be won.It doesn't look like Reid and Pelosi are going to back down. Bush is a bully, and when meeting this kind of opposition, Bully's frequently do back down. However, Cheney is crazy and Rove will not accept any single decision that threatens Republican election possibilities in 2008, and I suspect that Rove would view a retreat by Bush as such a threat.
Second, according to the source, Reid told Bush that he understood that the White House would come after Congressional Dems after the veto of the bill with everything they had; Reid vowed to respond every bit as aggressively.
"Reid talked about a recent conversation he had with a retired general where they talked about the similarities between the current situation and Vietnam," the source relates. "He talked about how the President and Secretary of Defense [during Vietnam] knew that the war was lost but continued to press on at the cost of thousands of additional lives lost."
"The analogy to Vietnam appeared to touch a nerve with the President. He appeared a little sensitive to it," the source continued. "And he clearly didn't like to hear people in the room say that the war couldn't be won militarily."
More: "Reid made it clear to the President that he understood that the President and Vice President after the veto would come after him and Speaker Pelosi with everything they have. Reid said that he and Pelosi would respond just as aggressively. He said he was convinced that they were on the right side of the issue."
This is going to be interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)