Will Democrats really support a Republican filibuster of health reform?

Olbermann and Howard Fineman discussed the need for Democrats to get 60 votes to shut off debate on the senate floor for health reform.

Fineman concluded that if the public option is included in the Senate Finance Committe bill, the Democrats "could lose" the support of two or three of their own senators.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Let's be clear about what we're talking about here.

No bill needs more than 51 votes for passage in the United States Senate. The 60-vote threshhold that has become the de facto standard for legislative success in the senate is merely what is needed to end debate on a measure and bring it up for a floor vote. It is, essentially, what is needed to overcome the threat of a filibuster.

Once upon a time, the Republicans insisted, and the news media agreed collectively, that every bill and every nominee deserved an up-or-down vote in the senate. This was when Republicans controlled congress and a Republican president was in the White House. The up-or-down vote narrative created the perception that any Democratic filibuster of a Republican legislative priority was nothing less than an affront to democracy.

That was then. This is now.

Now, the Republicans hold just 40 seats in a 100-member body that requires only a simple majority, 51 votes, to pass legislation.

In order to compensate for their lack of power in congress, the Republicans have begun rountinely issuing filibuster threats against Demcocratic legislative priorities. In fact, it has become so automatic that lawmakers and the news media assume now that any significant Democratic bill will be subjected to a filibuster. What was once considered an aberration has become the new normal. The Democratic majority is so cowed by this procedural tactic that they are willing to gut their own legislation pre-emptively to account for the likelihood of a Republican filibuster.

This would be pathetic even if the Democrats did not have the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster threat.

But with the appointment of Paul Kirk to replace Ted Kennedy, the Democratic majority has the 60 votes it needs to beat back a filibuster and bring a strong health reform bill to a floor vote in the senate. With 60 votes, the Democrats can shut off debate and bring a bill containing a public option to the senate floor where it would pass by a comfortable margin.

The 60 votes are needed only for the routine act of ending debate and bringing a measure to the senate floor for a vote. Any senator who disagrees with the bill, Republican or Democrat, who disagrees with the bill would be free to vote "no."

When pundits like Howard Fineman warn that the Democrats "could lose" some of their own members by including real reform in the reform bill, what they are talking about is Democrats supporting a Republican filibuster against their own party's legislation. What does it even mean to be a member of a political party if you support the opposition's effort to keep your own side from even voting on its top priority?

This dynamic literally allows a 40-seat minority to control the process in a 100-member body that passes legislation by simple majority. It renders moot the results of the elections that handed the Democrats such an overwhelming majority in the first place. It is complete surrender. It is obscene.

The majority must begin to change this dynamic now. The Democrats should pass out of the Senate Finance Committee a health reform bill with a strong public option. The leadership should make it clear that any Democrat who doesn't like the bill is free to vote against it during final passage.

But they must make it equally clear that there will be severe consequences for any Democrat who supports a Republican filibuster.

Health reform and immigration becoming linked in media narrative

Nice work validating yet another right-wing narrative, Max Baucus and Kent Conrad.

Health care negotiators in the Senate pressed for a way to ensure that illegal immigrants can't get access to government-funded insurance, a contentious issue now front and center after a Republican congressman's outburst during President Barack Obama's speech.

The issue is one of several thorny problems that came up as a small group of negotiators on the Senate Finance Committee met Friday morning. Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., is aiming to finalize legislation on Obama's health overhaul by next week — though whether it's bipartisan or not remains to be seen.

Right-wing nutcase shouts stupidly at the president when the president states a fact: that illegal immigrants will not be covered under a proposed health plan. Right-wing noise machine rallies around right-wing nutcase despite, or maybe because of, the fact that he is wrong.

Next obvious step: Democrats cave in to non-existent pressure to solve non-existent problem thereby validating right-wing nutcase and the noise machine that loves him.

Why do the Democrats have to keep learning over and over and over again that you gain nothing by caving in to right-wing nutcases? When has it ever worked?

Iraq - Democrats caved in to Bush on the grounds that if they didn't the Republicans would call them Soft on Terror. What happened after they caved? The Republicans called them Soft on Terror.

Torture - Democrats caved in to Bush on the grounds that if they did not, the Republicans would call them Soft on Terror. What happened after they caved? The Republicans called them Soft on Terror.

Warrantless Surveillance - Democrats caved in to Bush on the grounds that if they did not, the Republicans would call them Soft on Terror. What happened after they caved? The Republicans called them Soft on Terror.

And it's not only national security. The dynamic applies to domestic policy as well.

Taxes - Democrats caved into to Bush on tax cuts for the wealthy. It did not stop the Republicans from calling them Tax-and-Spend Liberals in the next election cycle.

Again and again and again, Democrats surrender to the Republicans in the hope that doing so will blunt the GOP's ability to hurl smears at them. Again and again and again the GOP pulls all the old smears out right on cue to predictable effect.

It was only after the absolute and undeniable failure of the Republican approach to governance that the Democrats took control of congress despite same old tactics of character assassination. The Democrats' inclination to surrender without a fight did nothing to prevent the attacks. After six years of conservative failure, voters just didn't buy it anymore. But by then, the damage - to our economy, our security, our national prestige - was done. Now, the Democratic president and the Democratic majority in congress are spending most of their time and energy trying to clean up the Republicans' mess.

Now, on health reform, we have weakness and capitulation making things even more difficult on the Democratic Party's signature issue. The only apparent reason for the surrender is to pre-empt Republican smears about publicly-funded health care for illegal immigrants. But we already know that nothing - nothing - will stop the Republicans from making those accusations. After all, H.R. 3200 specifically prohibits federal payments for undocumented aliens and that didn't stop a right-wing nutcase from calling the president a liar during a joint session congress.

How stupid can you be, Max Baucus?

Apparently, at least stupid enough to think that surrendering is a winning strategy.

Obviously we'll find out who wants to support the (bill) and who doesn't," Baucus said. "I'm hopeful that there will be bipartisan support. And I'll keep working on it frankly over the weekend, on the telephone talking to people, so on and so forth."

Yeah, good luck with that.

Cavuto tries to reason with RNC spokeswingnut and fails

When your spokesperson is so delusional that Neil Cavuto sounds reasonable by comparison, you have a problem.

This is exactly the situation in which the Republican National Committee finds itself as it can't even convince a Fox "News" host that it's a good idea to rename its opponents the Union of Democrat National Socialist Devil-worshipping Baby Eaters.



You have to give Cavuto credit where it's due. He really tries to reason with RNC committeewoman Cathie Adams, but she's just not having it. It's like trying to argue with a brick wall.

I particularly love the way she keeps repeating that stupid non-sequitur talking point: This isn't about personalities, this is about issues. Huh? Who said anything about personalities? I half-expected Cavuto to scream "What the f*** are you talking about?"

Do people like Ms. Adams really not see how ridiculous this is? Does the RNC really not appreciate what a self-defeating move it is to rename the Democratic Party the Democrat Socialist Party? Can they be so out of touch with reality that they don't realize they are turning their party into a punchline?

If this is the mind-set dominating the RNC right now, that party is in more trouble than even the most optimistic Democrats dare to dream.