home

Tactical Extremism From Ben Nelson

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 12:53:53 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Never send Matt Yglesias to negotiate for you, though he is a pretty good apologist. Watch him quaver at Ben Nelson's tactical extremism:

I know a lot of the readers of this blog think that Barack Obama could cause any bill to pass the Senate that he wants if only he were sufficiently spiney, and that any effort to point out the existence of objective impediments to passing legislation is just “shilling” for the White House, but it’s still the case that objective impediments exist. To pass a bill through a non-reconciliation process, you not only need the support of guys like Max Baucus and Kent Conrad, you also need the support of even-less-progressive Democrats like Mary Landrieu and Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln. And then there’s Ben Nelson, the most conservative Democrat of all. [. . .] Maybe you can get a public option put in place via reconciliation, in which case you don’t need Nelson, but absent reconciliation you do need Nelson and he’s intransigent.

In terms of bargaining, the response to Ben Nelson FROM Obama should be obvious - "Look Ben, I'd love to do it your way, but the House ain't going to budge. So unless you can work with a public option, I just do not think we can do business. We'll have to do it by reconciliation. Sorry." It doesn't take a genius to know this.

Speaking for me only

< Labor Day Weekend Begins: Salt of the Earth | Public Option More Popular Than Obama, Congress, Blue Dogs, Republicans, The Media . . . >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tactical Extremism From Ben Nelson | 65 comments (65 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Ugh (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:06:36 PM EST
    Double ugh. What Yglesias and others fail to acknowledge is the lack of leadership. We don't know what might happen or rather might've if there had been some leadership.

    Very True (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by SGITR on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:16:31 PM EST
    Had Obama crafted his own over the top bill and let congress carve away at that so that it ended up being an acceptable bill with a public option that would have not only shown leadership, it would have shown political smarts. Unfortunately...

    Parent
    Does anyone remember (5.00 / 12) (#2)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:07:12 PM EST
    the debate over the stimulus package, when some people said it should be bigger and others responded, "Look, it couldn't have possibly been any bigger and still gotten 60 votes"?

    The root cause is the same:  Taking Ben Nelson's Word For It.  In reality, just because someone says "I won't vote for any package bigger than X" doesn't tell you whether they really mean it.  You can still put them to the test, if you have the guts, and find out if they're really willing to go down in history as the person responsible for filibustering a critical bill.

    So, too, with health care; does Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, or whoever, really want their legacy to be "he filibustered universal health care because he disliked the public option"?  In 30 years when we still don't have UHC, is that how they want to be remembered?

    BTD has been telling people that the key to negotiation is making the other guy believe that you just might be capable of blowing up the whole thing.  Well, that's exactly what Ben Nelson and the others succeeded in accomplishing on the stimulus, and it's the same thing we're in the middle of now.  We will never truly know whether they were willing to blow up the world, but they made you THINK they were willing to do so, and that's all it took.  There was too much at stake to call their bluff.

    So the answer is, if it works so well for the other guy, maybe it can work for you too.  It's the exact same thing the progressives are doing in the House right now.  "Look, we are totally cRaaaaaaaZy, we're such liberal idealists that we might kill your bill just to make a statement!"  These strategies keep recurring because they work.

    Thank you Steve (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:11:13 PM EST
    It is frustrating to read all this bullspit day in and day out from "progressive" pundit voices.  Until further notice I think I'm better off just saying, "What Steve said".

    Parent
    Honestly (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:14:16 PM EST
    it seems that your average poster on a blog has so much more sense than the elected idiots.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:21:08 PM EST
    Like BTD, I've been negotiating litigation settlements for close to two decades, so it's not like I picked this stuff up whilst riding on the back of a turnip truck.  But yeah, once you spell it all out it sounds an awful lot like common sense.

    The law can help you understand politics... but studying politics has helped me be a better lawyer, too.  It's interesting how much overlap there is.  You know, a lobbyist is basically a litigator who operates in a different type of courtroom.

    Parent

    I can tell that you're worth (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:31:31 PM EST
    whatever your clients pay you.

    Parent
    Here's a winning strategy (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:22:31 PM EST
    I think we should give Steve M five minutes alone in a room with the idiotic WH official who ran to the press and said "It's so important to get a deal, he will do almost anything it takes to get one."

    Parent
    Good argument (none / 0) (#28)
    by SGITR on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:29:13 PM EST
    But I find two faults in it.

    The first one is you assume Nelson has the same values as you and I do. You assume it would be painful for him to be remembered as the guy who blew up HCR. I think he would treasure that label. After all that is what he is working toward in a very straight forward non-stealth manner. He'd rather be remembered as the guy who saved the corporate health care industry.

    The second fault in your argument is the older than Jesus tactic of being willing to walk away from the table. That works when you have two parties that want to come to an agreement on the same issue. It doesn't work when you have only one party that wants something.

    Nelson et al likes the status quo. There is no need for change as far as they are concerned. In fact they are working against your WANT for change. They are not a participant in negotiation. And you will never get them to be.

    You see if you tell Nelson et al that either you meet me in the middle or I'm walking away with nothing! - he would say - Make My Day!

    In short there are just situations when the threat of walking away from the table plays right into your opponents hands. This is one of those situations.

    Parent

    I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:51:29 PM EST
    Do you think there is nothing Ban Nelson might want from the administration--literally nothing? If the other party to the negotiation has no needs, wants, or desires, then your statement might be correct. But there is no need to consider this to be a negotiation over just health care divorced from all other issues. You want money to help you with re-election, Ben? Or do you prefer that we find a primary opponent to rough you up a little bit?

    See how easy that was?

    Parent

    If this were a combined party, (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:58:09 PM EST
    Harry Ried would say, "Gee, Ben, you are not getting recognized on the floor, the committees won't put aid to your state in these omnibus bills, and you're going to be 'little people.' I know, the senate isn't the white house, but the democratic party is the democratic party. Do you want to be little people, or do you want to have influence?  

    "Gentlemen, it's time." -TS Eliot

    Parent

    Sorry but (none / 0) (#43)
    by SGITR on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:11:40 PM EST
    election money? Do you really think that Nelson the corporate whore is worried about Obama election money in media starved Nebraska?

    He has a 68% popularity rating. He was a twice elected Governor of his state. He spent a little over a million dollars to win the Senate seat. That's not even petty cash to the health care industry. Why would he need Obama's money?

    Sorry by your reaching here. That fact is that Nelson is not a negotiation partner and those who are arguing that he could be are mistaken.

    Parent

    Everyone wants something (none / 0) (#44)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:19:30 PM EST
    In Nebraska, it may not be help with reelection. (I admit I don't know the state.) But he is a politican. Of course he can be purchased.

    Parent
    News Flash (none / 0) (#47)
    by SGITR on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:47:13 PM EST
    He is already purchased. Bought and paid for. With a nice lobbying job waiting upon retirement to go along with his Senate perks.

    Meanwhile he is stuffing his coffers with corporate cash.

    Are you starting to see the picture yet?

    Parent

    fine. cut off his legislation. (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 04:01:29 PM EST
    It can be done, It's been done to others in the past.

    Parent
    I suppose you could do that (none / 0) (#56)
    by SGITR on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 04:51:56 PM EST
    A lot of what he's introduced would benefit the agricultural and rural communities. So I'm not sure how popular cutting him off would be with the people in the Heartland. You see you forget when you cut him off you are effectively cutting off the interests of constituents in both his sate and similar states who are stakeholders in the same issues.

    Then he sits on a few committees where his vote may be important so he could fight back with that.

    So your suggestion is not as clean and easy as you think.

    Parent

    plenty of senators have agriculture (none / 0) (#63)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 10:24:36 AM EST
    and rural communities. they can lead on legislation. When I look at his stands and votes, he votes as often with the republicans as the deomocrats. He's voted against drilling in ANWAR, but against federal funds for stem cell research.

    Parent
    I do not assume that (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:01:08 PM EST
    I am making no assumptions whatsoever about whether Nelson is willing to walk away.  You can make a case that he is, you can make a case that he isn't.  I think you misread my post if you infer that I claim to know for certain either way.

    The point is that as long as Nelson can make a credible threat that he is willing to walk away, it's often going to be irrelevant whether he is or not because no one can afford to take that chance.

    Was the United States really willing to destroy the world if the Soviets nuked us?  Who knows?  But the fact that we MIGHT HAVE is a big part of the reason we never had to find out.

    Parent

    I say let him walk away, (none / 0) (#42)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:06:06 PM EST
    then pillory him for walking away. Let him defend walking away.

    Parent
    Nelson walk away? (none / 0) (#45)
    by SGITR on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:39:36 PM EST
    From what? He already has walked away from the public option several times.

    Even today - via HuffPO:

    Nelson was asked how the health-reform debate ends:

    "I see two endings.

    "One is we find areas we can agree upon and we begin to do things incrementally, taking more of an insurance approach, not a government approach.

    "Or it implodes.

    "With great disappointment for people on one side and to the apparent glee of those on the other side."

    In short, my way or the highway.

    But yet you suggest in your last post:


    So the answer is, if it works so well for the other guy, maybe it can work for you too.

    You are clearly suggesting (with examples) that Obama should threaten to walk away.

    Ben Nelson: "Make My Day".

    That's pretty much what he would say based on his past comments and todays comment quoted above. I don't see how the threat of walking away from a Senate bill makes any sense at all.

    We already have a threat of walking away in the House as you pointed out. Why the need for another? It accomplishes nothing. What we need from the Senate is a bill to take to conference that will have a sweet outcome. Threatening to walk away from a guy who would gladly escort you to the door is not the way to get a bill to conference.

    You apparently don't understand that and as a result are making arguments that don't hold water.

    Right now reconciliation seems to be the only open field and even that approach is filled with it's own land mines, some of which a Ben Nelson could trigger if he chose too.

    The above is just my experiential opinion. I'd love to see a solid argument showing how walking away from a bill in the Senate achieves meaningful HCR. But there just is not one that would add up.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 04:07:36 PM EST
    I am not suggesting that Obama should threaten to walk away.  That would be a bizarre scenario, the President who put health care reform on the agenda threatening Congress, "Fine, you won't get a health care bill at all, see how you like it!"  I must be doing a very poor job of communicating today.

    I do think maybe you should mentally substitute another name for Ben Nelson as you seem unduly hung up on the particulars of his case.  This is a discussion of negotiating tactics and how progressives should think about employing them, not an argument over whether a specific politician is or is not bluffing.  I have no interest in any such arguments.

    Parent

    You know who this is right? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 04:16:41 PM EST
    This commenter? He's back.

    Parent
    Ya think? (none / 0) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 04:38:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Dude (none / 0) (#53)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 04:39:32 PM EST
    I knew it from literally his first comment.  For once I am way ahead of you on something.

    Parent
    Goodness (none / 0) (#51)
    by SGITR on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 04:38:49 PM EST
    I can't believe what I just read from you.

    If you are now saying Obama should not walk away then who were you suggesting should? And whoever it would be wouldn't they be walking away for the entire Democratic Party? I mean for the threat you suggest to be effective it has to be everyone that walks away in congress by simple deduction that would mean Obama would walk away too.

    I don't see how you could originally suggest we walk away - which was the theme of your post - and not think that it would have to include Obama too.

    Secondly - you are now saying that you think that I "should mentally substitute another name for Ben Nelson".

    Are you frigging kidding?

    Anyone here who read your post can see that the entire post is about Ben Nelson!! You mention his name THREE TIMES. And his name appears three of 5 paragraphs. And in all but the opening paragraph you are directly talking about him and Max Baucus. Referencing to them as "they", "them", "he", "their".

    And in the last paragraph you are suggesting that we threaten to walk out the same as "the other guy" has.

    Your entire post is about Ben, Max, and turning their own "walk away" tactic on them.

    Steve I think the only thing that is being walked away from is you walking away from you own argument in a not too graceful way. And that is putting it kindly.

    Perhaps an 'I see your point' would have been a little less messy for you.

    Parent

    The tactic I am discussing (none / 0) (#54)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 04:48:44 PM EST
    is the exact same tactic currently being employed by the Progressive Block in the House.  It is the same tactic, more or less, being employed by the AFL-CIO.  It is a tactic that can be employed by any group of organized progressives large enough to make a difference.

    The premise of our discussion is that Obama is who he is and that progressives need to do something on their own to try and steer the bill towards a better outcome.  I do not subscribe to a theory that Obama really, truly, deeply loves the public option but is just an incompetent negotiator; and I suspect neither do you.  It doesn't appear to me that he feels strongly about the issue at all which is why the people who do feel strongly need to pick up the laboring oar.

    As for why I referenced Ben Nelson by name, it is because the post is about Ben Nelson.  I find it helpful to refer to concrete examples, but I'm telling the truth when I say my purpose is to discuss negotiating strategy rather than to get into the psyches of specific politicians, which I consider unproductive.  If you want to believe that I'm lying and that I just don't want to admit how badly you "owned" me in terms of analyzing Ben Nelson's motivations, then fine, you may go enter your default with the clerk, because I just have no interest in that topic.

    Parent

    Look (none / 0) (#58)
    by SGITR on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 05:07:39 PM EST
    as you and I already mentioned, and everyone here knows, we already have a threat of walking away in the House. It's a good tactic. And if that block holds it's all we need.

    But you are talking about the Senate. Walking away in the Senate makes no sense and you now realize that but you won't admit it.

    Walking away in the Senate as you are suggesting gets us no bill to take to conference. It's really that simple and you didn't allow for that inconvenience in your original argument.

    Parent

    I did not recommend (none / 0) (#60)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 05:38:02 PM EST
    walking away in the Senate.  In fact, if you ever have to walk away when using this strategy, that means you've failed because you apparently weren't able to make a credible threat.  I frankly have no idea whether there's a better overall strategy than getting a good bill in the House and then praying for magic to happen during the conference committee process.

    My point - and I hope I'm not wasting my time by explaining it, only to have you come back with "that wasn't your point at all, you just don't want to admit you were wrong," which gets tiresome - was twofold: (1) the situation the moderates put the rest of us in during the stimulus debate is exactly what we're talking about doing, only we were on the business end in that case; and (2) when the strategy is well-executed, people tend to walk away thinking that they got the best deal they could possibly get, but in reality there's just no way of knowing.

    Parent

    Oh I see (none / 0) (#61)
    by SGITR on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 06:31:47 PM EST
    So you were not saying that we should walk away in the Senate. You are just saying we should threaten to. I got it.

    Which of course then Nelson et al, who are not so dumb, would call your bluff because they would love you to walk away (another point you keep missing even though they are trying their damnedest to make that happen anyway - appaerntly unbeknown to you).

    And guess what, it costs them nothing to call your bluff. If you walk away - THEY WIN. Do you get that part?

    And if you don't walk away they expose you as weak-kneed amateurs and your remaining negotiating position is nil. They then have the upper hand because you shot your wad on your faux threat and you leave them in complete control - THEY WIN - because what are you going to threaten them with then?

    Your negotiation skills need a lot of work Steve. There are some good books to read. Common sense is indispensable also. This ain't poker where you lose the bluff and come back and play another day. The walk away tactic is not for faux threats. Just like pulling a gun out on someone who pulled one on you is not advisable unless you are dead serious about using it.

    You keep missing the points, no matter how many times I mention them, that in order for the walk away tactic to work you:

    a) Have to be serious about walking away

    b) You have a negotiating partner that doesn't want you to walk away. That is crucial for the tactic to work.

    You don't have that with Nelson et all. They want you to walk away silly. So why do you keep insisting on threatening them with something they want you to do!!! How does that make sense?

    You are going to hand them a threat that they welcome? And when they call your bluff you don't plan to walk. Brilliant.

    Sorry but it is really funny that you want to threaten someone with the very thing they have been working for months to try to get you to do.

    You do realize that they are working to craft a bill that:

    a) True reformers would never vote for because it is written by and for the insurance companies and does nothing for reform.

    b) And they are working the political end to make sure you don't have the votes for a true reform bill.

    End result of both...

    You Walk Away from either!

    And you want to threaten them with walking away?

    Never in my widest dreams...

    P.S. If you don't get it by now, you just are not going to get it.

    Parent

    O.K. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 07:26:38 PM EST
    I'll play. Under your scenario, we have two options.

    1. We accept a bill that is written by and for the insurance companies and does nothing for reform.

    2. We put a real reform bill to vote and people like Ben Nelson vote it down.

    What do you recommend?

    Parent
    Well actually MO Blue (none / 0) (#65)
    by SGITR on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:57:35 AM EST
    the topic was not about either choice when it comes to a bill. The topic was about Steve's suggestion that we call a bluff that Nelson would love us to call.

    As for your question if you have read my other posts you already know the answer.

    Parent

    I have read many of your other posts (none / 0) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 02:29:43 PM EST
    and had I already known the answer, I would not have asked the question. Admittedly, I may have missed posts or they might have been over my head.

    Based on previous comments regarding Reid, I'm not even sure how you think that the second option "We put a real reform bill to vote and people like Ben Nelson vote it down." would get to the Senate floor for a vote.

    I think that you favor real reform. I have never gotten the impression that you think that Obama or the Senate will go to the mat for real reform. So based on what I remember of your posts it is unclear to me how you think that could come about.

    Parent

    How can it come about? (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by SGITR on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 08:08:52 PM EST
    That chance has been becoming slimmer by the day. Given Nelson's comments yesterday and Obama making a pitch to the Progressives to 'Save The Party, Sell Out', our chances look even slimmer.

    Right now I am thinking our only real chance is to somehow pull a rabbit out of a hat through a very clever and well crafted bullet proof reconciliation bill. That's asking a lot.

    I think the strategy should be having the Senate ram every thing they can that is bullet proof through a reconciliation bill and then have those parts that can't be included in a reconciliation bill watered down enough to pass a regular vote.

    Of course we would rely on the House to keep those parts in a non-watered down version in their bill and then include them in the final bill during conference.

    That the only way I see getting a good bill out of conference on to the floor for a vote.

    Which brings us to the impossible part and that is having the Senate vote through the conference bill. As of now that probably won't happen but it would give us the pleasure of having Nelson et al having to vote it down.

    Of course the problem we have is the Republicans and the Nelson's are no dummies. They will be able to see the strategy being played. So their option would be whether they want to vote down a watered down Senate bill or to wait and vote down the conference bill that has all the thing they oppose  added back in via the House bill during conference. Of course they would vote one or the other down.

    So you asked how do we force Nelson to vote it down. My strategy above is the only way I see it happening. Essentially we have to strip the Senate bill down but get it all back when we are behind the curtain and in full control.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#64)
    by Steve M on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 11:36:10 AM EST
    I didn't say we should threaten to walk away in the Senate.

    I didn't even bother reading further in your comment because your schtick is just too tiresome at this point.  Waste of time to talk with you when you get like this.

    Parent

    Somebody needs to tell Sen. Nelson (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:14:33 PM EST
    something like this: "Ben, either play ball with us on this one, or we're gonna shove the bat up your a$$ for the next four years."

    Where's Carville? Probably at the beach with his kids... but tuesday's a work day. how about an emeritus lecture from old James?

    "objective impediments"? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:16:49 PM EST
    So, Ben Nelson and the others mentioned are firm, absolute, steely-spined immoveable objects to which the President must yield? I don't buy it.  

    Sen. Nelson was elected in 2006 with 378,000 votes.  Pres. Obama was elected in 2008 with 69,500,000 votes.  Not to mix metaphors, but why is Sen. Nelson driving this train?

    Sen. Nelson (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:18:55 PM EST
    can drive the train. It's easy when you have Milquetoast Goodspeech for a president. I mean if I was Ben Nelson I would be doing the same thing. Obama has constantly caved so what's the risk for Ben here? It's a win/win for him.

    Parent
    Let's see some good old LBJ (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:21:44 PM EST
    or Nixon moves. "Nelson? dead. Who else doesn't want to get on board? Landrieux? Tell her we'll make 15 campain appearances for her. If she still balks? Dead. We can't depend on her anyway. Louisiana's a stronghold of republicans, we're just lucky she held on so long. Write her off. We'll mobilize in Texas, Florida, Alabama and Tennessee. We should pick up one of those to offset her. Two would be gravy."

    Let's see some political calculus!  

    I view politics like I viewed combat. Just not as friendly as combat.

    Parent

    Man (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:26:44 PM EST
    you can tell you live in the south even without your handle. We know exactly what you're dealing with with the GOP and how to make members of your own party work. These latte liberals think that the GOP can be reasoned with. We know better.

    Parent
    I think you spell out the reason (none / 0) (#12)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:29:24 PM EST
    I like Carville and The Big Dog.

    Punch them in the face until THEY apologize.

    Parent

    Or shoot them in the face (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:03:53 PM EST
    till they apologize, Cheney style.

    Parent
    Nah, that guy had already taken (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:08:09 PM EST
    the kool aid. We're Democrats, we don't shoot our friends when they're friendly, lol!

    Wait a minute... we're democrats, we shoot each other all the time.

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:12:17 PM EST
    Maybe Cheney's buddy tee'd him off the day before, said something bad about torture or something.

    Sorry to divert, but the similarity in the struck me!

    Parent

    I still don't get why (none / 0) (#14)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:36:39 PM EST
    we insist on bargaining with their strongest links either. Let's see Snowe has a high popularity rating, little skin in the game since she isn't up for reelection-I know let's use her as a negotiating partner. Is it any wonder they can't get her to blink?

    Parent
    to be fair (none / 0) (#16)
    by CST on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:38:55 PM EST
    Snowe is one of the only republicans worth bargaining with.  She has high popularity because she isn't very conservative.  She knows where she's from.  I think she'll vote for it either way though.

    Parent
    Weren't the dems in DC courting her to (none / 0) (#18)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:40:31 PM EST
    change party affiliation, also?

    Parent
    In 2009 (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:23:36 PM EST
    she was pretty adamant she was staying with the GOP(despite her belief that THEY have abandoned principles). I don't see a whole lot of incentive for her to switch she's already on Finance committee and she already has the ear of the President without a switch.

    Parent
    She is one of the more (none / 0) (#22)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:11:14 PM EST
    reasonable of those left but there is little political cost to her if she stands in the way. She isn't up for re election until 2012 and she has little to gain by a political win for Democrats.

    Parent
    not really true (none / 0) (#26)
    by CST on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:22:19 PM EST
    regarding political cost and gain.  True, she has some time to kill.  But she does better when Maine does better, they could care less about the generic R or D next to the name up.  Maine is not a typical republican state, and she knows that.  There is a reason there are barely any republicans left in New England.  Obama got 58% of the vote there, and won almost every single district.

    The political cost for her standing in the way is a healthcare failure.  She has a lot more to gain at home by being seen as the reason it passes than the reason it fails.

    Parent

    The cost wouldn't come until 2012 (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:31:40 PM EST
    Which do you view as more likely Maine folk will be willing to forgive and blame Obama or the Senator that has served them fairly well(by their own opinion)for over a decade?

    I'm going with Snowe being able to get a pass by the time 2012 rolls around.


    Parent

    In a way (none / 0) (#34)
    by CST on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:38:04 PM EST
    It's in her benefit too if Obama succeeds.  She has a lot more power now than she did under Bush.  Back when she was just another republican, and a moderate (under the bus) one at that.

    But at the end of the day, how is it in her benefit for healthcare to fail?   Might she get a pass?  Maybe, maybe not.  However, if she is seen as the glue that holds this all together, that is definitely to her benefit.

    Parent

    I understand what you are saying (none / 0) (#46)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 03:43:04 PM EST
    and in theory you are right she DOES and IS benefitting even as early as RIGHT NOW. The sad thing is that her position in this weakens the option that the President says he felt was the best option. He's basically elevated her status to his own by making her THE Republican that he needs on board. Strategywise I just don't see that as smart. He's given her dominance and HE is the one who is supposed to be leading.

    Parent
    Unfortunately for our side (none / 0) (#55)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 04:49:06 PM EST
    Snowe is one of those rare Republicans with actual principles.  Having the gummint compete with private industry is flat-out against her principles.

    Parent
    which is all the more reason (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 05:23:51 PM EST
    to work around her rather than elevate her status on this issue.

    He basically gave her the upper hand and power when he had his people insinuate he NEEDED her on board.

    It would have been smarter to not have made it an imperative.

    Parent

    theres a reason (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:37:08 PM EST
    Clinton called it the War Room

    Parent
    I think its becomming clearer (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 01:39:52 PM EST
    that Nelson and Obama are, if not on the same page at least in the same chapter. Greg Sargent:

    Okay, so the White House is circulating an  upbeat polling memo citing a bunch of public surveys showing that public opinion still tilts heavily in Obama's favor on health care.

    The memo, by Obama pollster Joel Benenson, doesn't mention the public option (the White House may not be committed to it) and largely cites general numbers showing support for action and for Obama's plan.

    But here's the funny thing: We went back and checked, and virtually every poll cited in this memo also found strong support for the inclusion of a public plan.
    That's what I think (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:06:00 PM EST
    From now on I'm starting from the assumption that Obama is a Blue dog, and going from there.

    Parent
    Fabian (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by cal1942 on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:32:48 PM EST
    I completely agree. There's a reason he never bothered to submit legislation.

    I get a "chuckle" whenever whatever it is is called Obamacare.

    But he told everyone exactly who and what he was during the primaries.  Hell, he even promised that he would retain Blackwater and others of their ilk when Hillary said one of her highest priorities was to rid us of Blackwater and all other private contractors.  He praised Republicans, his economics advisors were a mixed bag of free marketeers, free traders and Social Security privatizers, etc., etc., etc.

    He wasn't at all interested in restructuring the finance industry when there was overwhelming public anger to give ample cover and obtain support.  He appointed Geitner, put Suimmers, Goolsbee, et al on his White House staff, blocked Keynesian economists from the inner and outer circle (except for one member of Biden's staff.

    He's the most conservative "Democratic" President since Grover Cleveland.

    During the primaries it was all too clear.  Past is prologue.

    Parent

    "oh, and by the way, (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by cpinva on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:55:06 PM EST
    those choice committee assignments you wanted ben? those ain't going to happen either. also, forget about budget money to your state, that's going elsewhere. hey dude, have a great day!"

    Perhaps this is what happens (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:16:20 PM EST
    when we raise all of our kids using the Dr. Spock method :)  My daughter claims I ruined my credibility as a parent with her using those methods because it was obvious to her that the real world did not work that way.  I was a pushover in her book and boy did she let me know the hard way that I was for awhile :)  When Joshua and I were watching George Lopez and he was making fun of how Latte sippers raise their kids and their kids are not tough....it was very funny...but subconsciously for me sort of not since in some ways I resemble that remark and all that that could imply for the next generation in my family.

    I was raised with a mix of Spock and (none / 0) (#31)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:34:44 PM EST
    'Old School,' because I PWN3D the Spock method! Of course, I learned to own the 'old school' too, after I realized that it only hurt for a little while. My folks found the key, though... take away my books.

    That was punishment! The other stuff? not so much.

    Parent

    My daughter taught me Old School :) (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:45:42 PM EST
    When the student is ready the teacher will appear :)  I've learned more completely new interaction skills and found more new back bones this past ten years than most of my life after early childhood.  Not all of it due to my daughter either.  Lying Presidents and VPs and wars did much as well.  Each child is different though, and some are born with skills that their parents must learn :)  I do wonder about how we may have hindered our children's abilities to deal with hardship though these days.  I just ran into another soldier's wife the other day who will not allow her son to have toy guns....but dad has one strapped to him right now 24/7 and using it.  What does this say about how cut off from reality we attempt to raise our kids at the moment?  And if you don't want guns to be a part of our children's reality, what do we REALLY need to do about that?

    Parent
    my (soon to be ex) wife (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:51:19 PM EST
    freaked when my son was given a cowboy outfit complete with six-shooter on his birthday. She's from Colombia, one of the most violent places in the world, and can't get through her head that boys will use their fingers to make guns and gun noises, a plastic pistol is just decoration for that.

    Girls tend not to do the shooting, but boys do... I don't know why. this behavior or lack starts VERY young, 3-4.

    Parent

    I have always said (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:36:42 PM EST
    to much consternation of my yuppie parent friends that if it was not for corporal punishment, both and my home and my school, I would now be in prison.

    I believe that with all my heart.


    Parent

    I had the problem of (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 02:42:18 PM EST
    righteous indignation. My sister was an honor roll, honor society student who, in her spare time, was involved with the druggies, the thieves, the rich bad kids, while I refused to smoke dope, steal, or commit mischief. I did, however, grow long hair, rode a motorcycle, wore old Army clothes, and smoked cigarettes.

    I remember when my parents found a bag of pot in the house and called my sister and I for the inquisition. I was innocent and not concerned. My sister immediately said, "It's HIS!"

    I got the punishment. Now that, my friends, was a life lesson.

    Parent

    Tactical Extremism From Ben Nelson | 65 comments (65 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment