Rockefeller Not Inclined To Support Reconciliation For The Public Plan

[ohiodemocratic]

Huffington Post (2-22-10):

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) threw a wrench into Democratic efforts to get a public option passed through reconciliation, saying that he thought the maneuver was overly partisan and that he was inclined to oppose it.

"I don't think the timing of it is very good," the West Virginia Democrat said on Monday. "I'm probably not going to vote for that, although I'm strongly for the public option, because I think it creates, at a time when we really need as much bipartisan ... as possible. "

Rockefeller added: "I don't think you something like the public option, which cannot pass, will not pass. And if we get the Senate bill--both through the medical loss ratio and the national plans, which have in that, every one of them has to have one not-for-profit plan, which is sort of like a public option."

In making his sentiment known, Rockefeller becomes perhaps the most unexpected skeptic of the public-option-via-reconciliation route. The Senator was a huge booster of a government run insurance option during the legislation drafting process this past year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/22/rockefeller-not-inclined_n_472393.html

[Cali_Democrat]

1. I blame Obama!!!

:sarcasm:

[ProSense]

3. It would be easier

to herd cats.

[Cha]

9. There are some who will bc

they never miss a fucking chance to come up with the cheap ass shots.

[vaberella]

28. Don't we all. At this point it's part and parcel with being inducted into DU. n/t

[CrownPrinceBandar]

2. OH COME ON!!!!!!!!!...........

This "political scruples" excuse is bullshit and tired.

[ProSense]

4. Makes no sense. n/t

[Cha]

6. Yeah, how about contacting Senator Jay Rockefeller

and let him know what we think of his so called "political scruples" vs the will of the People.

http://rockefeller.senate.gov/contact/

[CTyankee]

39. What's wrong with the plan having the requirement of a "non-profit" plan

in the mix? The Swiss have only non-profit, private insurers, not a government-run health care system. I am aware of course that they also have heavy government regulation of insurers and a much better safety net for people unable to pay for health insurance. However, it is a first step. AND it seems that getting a nonprofit in the mix is a huge "foot in the door."

Let's not get carried away here...

[Cha]

43. Didn't say there was.. In fact it's a good thing.

[vaberella]

29. Exactly. I'm just as tired. This Senate just wants to fuck up the President. Seriously. n/t

[beyurslf]

5. We only need 50.

[vaberella]

30. Yeah, but he should have been an easy vote. Not the damned problem.

He's just like Menendez.

[Jersey Devil]

44. Hmm? Didn't Menendez sign the letter supporting PO?

It says here he did:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/30-senators-sign-letter-supporting-public-option.php

[w4rma]

7. Liar. nt

[depakid]

8. No political risk in crossing the administration or Senate "leadership" (Machiavelli again)

"This gives rise to an argument: whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the opposite. The answer is that one would like to be both, but since it is difficult to combine the two it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to make way. For generally speaking, one can say the following about men: they are ungrateful, inconsistent, feigners and dissimulators, avoiders of danger, eager for gain, and whilst it profits them they are all yours.

They will offer you their blood, their property, their life and their offspring when your need for them is remote. But when your needs are pressing, they turn away. The prince who depends entirely on their words perishes when he finds he has not taken any other precautions. This is because friendships purchased with money and not by greatness and nobility of spirit are paid for, but not collected, and when you need them they cannot be used.

Men are less worried about harming somebody who makes himself loved than someone who makes himself feared, for love is held by a chain of obligation which, since men are bad, is broken at every opportunity for personal gain. Fear, on the other hand, is maintained by a dread of punishment which will never desert you.

LBJ understood and applied this- whether this administration will learn to do so or not- I guess we shall see

[ProSense]

11. Put away the flawed theories.

If the claim is that the President doesn't want the public option, how exactly is Rockefeller crossing the administration?

[depakid]

17. The specific issue is reconciliation- and crossing Obama (or the administration)

with impunity is a general tendency- which can be found over an over going back to the campaign.

Not really certain why these sorts of concepts are so hard for you to grasp, but it reminds me of the sort of spin addicted anti-intellectualism which we see so often on the other side of the aisle.

[ProSense]

18. Don't be ridiculous. The issue is reconciliation to pass a public option

Rockefeller wants health care reform to pass, he is currently grandstanding.

"Not really certain why these sorts of concepts are so hard for you to grasp, but it reminds me of the sort of spin addicted anti-intellectualism which we see so often on the other side of the aisle."

What's curious is your constant need to try to pass off psychobabble as intellectualism.

[depakid]

19. Facts of the matter:

1st- as posters have pointed out, Rockefeller actively supported the public option:

Rockefeller's public option defeated 8-15 in Senate Finance Committee vote

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/60739-public-option-fails-in-senate-committee

So the issue is procedural: e.g. reconciliation

2nd: Noted scientists and time tested political observers and philosophers are usually demeaned by the shallow spin addicted sorts on the other side of the aisle.

N'est pas?

[ProSense]

22. "Rockefeller actively supported the public option"

Really? No, really?

What's Rockefeller going to do when there are no Republican votes?

"2nd: Noted scientists and time tested political observers and philosophers are usually demeaned by the shallow spin addicted sorts on the other side of the aisle."

More pyschobabble.

[TheBigotBasher]

10. Am I being thick here?

I thought what he said made as much sense as Sarah Palin explaining the Bush doctrine.

OK the first quote has ....s so I will excuse the verbal meltdown.

The second quote is supposedly verbatim (no ...s).

It still makes no sense

"I don't think you something like the public option, which cannot pass, will not pass. And if we get the Senate bill--both through the medical loss ratio and the national plans, which have in that, every one of them has to have one not-for-profit plan, which is sort of like a public option."

[ohiodemocratic]

13. But didn't Rockefeller support (or pretended to support) the Public option before?

How likely was it to pass when 60 votes were required as opposed to reconciliation in which 51 are required?

[democrat2thecore]

16. And even hoped for reconciliation if memory serves me correctly -nt

[vaberella]

31. Exactly. Lame excuses defended by some on DU. n/t

[freddie mertz]

37. Didn't Obama support the public option once?

On second thought, he never really did.

[vaberella]

41. He hasn't stopped. But you and others claim he has. n/t

[high density]

12. The only "bipartisan" possibility is NO

There is simply no other option the GOP will accept. The faster Democrats finally figure that out the easier they'll be re-elected in November.

[David Zephyr]

14. This is from the guy whose fortune is filled with the blood of Ludlow.

His name is Rockefeller.

[CBR]

15. He'll support it when Obama agrees to extend special benefits

to coal companies. That is all it ever is for Rockefeller. I hope Obama tells him to stuff it.

[Arkana]

20. Goddamnit, Jay--you're THERE.

YOU CAN SEE IT. Your Republican colleagues are not interested in governing, or bipartisanship, or ANYTHING of that kind.

WHAT THE HELL.

[paulk]

21. another chickenshit Democrat

who doesn't want to be on record with an actual vote...


"overly partisan" ?????????????????


how many of these motherfuckers do we have to put in office?

What sort of majority do they need to accomplish ANYTHING?

[vaberella]

34. The thing was he supported the PO and I believe was okay with reconciliation.

I don't know what happened.

[zulchzulu]

23. The Rockefeller robber baron blood is finally coming to the surface

So suddenly Rockefeller finds it that the poor working class are a nuisance and something that makes him uncomfortable to possibly help out.

I never trusted the son of a bitch ever since he was a weakling on the 9/11 Commission.

[vaberella]

32. Dude...I don't understand the Senate. They're all Lieberman's. nt

[Jennicut]

24. So, when a Dem politician won't support something he is for, is Obama to blame?

Where is the leadership, Obama! :sarcasm:

really, this is what he has to work with?

[vaberella]

33. Of course it is...see Post #8.

Obama is too weak. So of course he's not feared so his fellow people turn on him. Don't you see the logic?! He should be an LBJ.

[Kyril Enko]

25. Un-befucking-lievable!

Where does Washington get its water supply from, Love Canal???

[fujiyama]

26. All I can say

x(

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

[vaberella]

27. Of course where are the people to blame Obama on this one too.

We have a fuckin' nightmare of a Senate but Obama is to blame.

[AlinPA]

35. This might stop the plan for reconciliation. nt

[freddie mertz]

36. Very disappointing. We have to start calling him, I guess.

It is getting to be a little much, isn't it?

[Rockholm]

38. Maybe it's a trick? Maybe he will vote for it once more say they will?

I am at a loss anymore as to what is happening in DC.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

40. sigh

the GOP has him eating out of their hand

[GreenTea]

42. Only need 50 votes-We knew that 7 to 9 blue dogs & other Dems wouldn't go along-But VP Biden will

always make it 51 democrats if necessary - a simple & legal majority in anyone's book!

[CrownPrinceBandar]

45. Called him again today...........

His staffer reiterated that Rockefeller is a big proponent of the PO, but maintains that this is not the way to do it. When I asked the very nice, polite staffer what was his answer to the apparent positions that the private insurance industry has taken and the fact that they have shown no motivation to play right by the American consumer (a point which the staffer said that the Sen strongly agrees with), she basically fell back upon his press statement. I also asked why the Senator was turning his back upon a proposal that polls consistently high, I was told the same answer: "Not right now, not this way". I finished the conversation with a thank you and that he should sign the letter anyway as it carried very little political risk and is what his constituents want.

Sorry folks, Rockefeller sounds like a no go.