re: #180 sliv_the_eli

OK, at least now we are clear on the terms of reference. We disagree, however, on whether the Dems could have gotten a couple of Repub votes if they really cared about the issue, rather than scoring political points. As I noted in #176, they don’t need more than one or two Repub votes. On issues that the Dem leadership cared about, they came up with a strategy to get the votes.

Dem leadership really cared about the stimulus, and offered all sorts of compromises. They made 1/3 of it tax cuts. They cut out half a dozen specific funding items that Republicans objected to. They spent a week with Snowe going through it line by line trying to knock down another $100M. And when it finally came to a vote… not a single Republican vote, not even Snowe.

Dem leadership really cared about the health care bill. Snowe was on one of the committees writing it, and spent half the summer rolling them. The committee could have passed it 11-7 on a party line vote, but they really wanted Snowe on board. She stalled. She opposed sections. She negotiated compromises, and when she got what she’d asked for she’d suddenly think of something else to ask for. They burned up almost half of the time that the Dems had a filibuster-proof count before she finally, finally voted to get it out of committee, with a speech about how she hadn’t decided if she’d actually vote for the bill when it came to a final vote. And indeed, she didn’t vote for the bill.

So fuck your “the Dems could have gotten a couple of Repub votes if they really cared about the issue.” They got Voinovich, because he’s not running again and doesn’t give a care what the Republican leadership wants, but that’s all. And in the lame duck session after the election, there’ll probably be a couple less Dems and more Reps because the seats that used to hold Byrd and Obama and Biden and Salazar the interim appointees get tossed the day after the election and the winners don’t have to wait until January.