Oh great. Ben Nelson's abortion amendment is almost exactly like the Stupak language.
When I read stories like this, I can't help but to return to a pet fascination/frustration of mine. I can't help but to seriously question the wisdom of friendlies who are overly critical of the president's approach to healthcare reform. The fact is that no matter how charismatic he might be, or how LBJ-ish he could be, there's just no way around assnauts like Ben Nelson or Joe Lieberman or Max Baucus. I'm not sure how the president could ever have zig-zagged around this crew with any public option more robust than what we're getting. It just doesn't seem possible.
Yglesias (again) makes a terrific point about the Liebercrats and conservadems in a post titled Obama Still Popular, Legislating Is Just Hard:
Somewhere between 90 and 100 members of the United States Senate seem committed to the current supermajority system for passing legislation. The supermajority system could be changed, but it can’t be changed by Obama. And thus to assemble 60 votes, Obama needs to rely on Democrats who represent such states as Arkansas, Louisiana, North Dakota, Indiana, South Dakota, Montana, and Nebraska. These states are all more conservative than the average American state. This makes it, objectively, very difficult to secure 60 votes for a progressive legislative agenda. In the House of Representatives, which is elected in a different way, Obama hasn’t had a major problem securing a majority for a progressive legislative agenda. And in the Senate, it’s not like Obama’s been an abject failure.
If any of the "Just Like Bush" crowd can explain to me how the president was supposed to pass healthcare reform without the help of the conservadems, I'd love to know. Personally, I can't seem to crack that nut.
60 votes should read 60 votes*.