Nelson is a yes vote (confirmed)

Politico ^ | November 20, 2009 | by Chris Frates

[MaestroLC]

Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson announced today that he is going to vote with his party to move the debate forward.

*snip*

“It is only to begin debate and an opportunity to make improvements. If you don't like a bill, why block your own opportunity to amend it?

“As we have seen before, obstructionists are inviting a move toward reconciliation by opposing this first procedural vote. Let's be clear. That route shrinks debate and amendments, eliminates bipartisanship and needs only 50 votes to pass a bill.

[b4its2late]

I hope you’re right, but I would not bet the house on it. But go ahead if you are that sure.

[DestroyLiberalism]

“If GOP had brains (or the Senators supposedly presenting GOP voters had brains) they would announce not only opposition to the bill, but also make a pledge to repeal the law when they get majority (and refuse the fund any section of it).

This would further weaken the dems willingness to vote for a legislation that will be repealed anyway.

Now the impression dems get from GOP is that once they pass it, it will stay forever (naturally gradually expanding).”

*****

The problem with this is, even if the Republicans sweep back into Congressional power after the November 2010 elections, an attempt to repeal Obamacare would be met with a presidential veto, which I believe would require a 2/3 vote in the Senate to override. The Republicans won’t have those kind of numbers.

It looks like it may be up to Joe Lieberman to stop this. Fortunately, I don’t think he’s forgotten how the Democrat party demonized him as he unwaiveringly supported the war in Iraq. After the Dems threw him under the bus during the 2006 Connecticut Senate primary race, he broke ranks with the party to become an independent and won re-election as a result.

Let’s hope and pray he sticks to his guns and becomes the deciding vote to kill debate on this heinous health deform bill.

[Hoodat]

Agreed. I will go even further to say that they only need 50 votes, so up to nine of them can opt out. There are 52 Democrat Senators who are either not up for election in 2010 or are considered safe. That right there gives them two votes more than they need. And no, they will not need 60 votes to end debate. As you so eloquently put it, they are Democrats. And there is no way any Democrat is going to allow 41 Senators to prevent them from achieving their agenda - rules be damned.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Nelson: “As we have seen before, obstructionists are inviting a move toward reconciliation by opposing this first procedural vote. Let's be clear. That route shrinks debate and amendments, eliminates bipartisanship and needs only 50 votes to pass a bill.

I don't understand this. Is he saying that if there was a "No" on the procedural vote to move the bill forward into debate, Reid could go straight to reconciliation? (It doesn't quite make sense to me.)

"If that ['fixing' the bill] is not possible, I will oppose the second cloture motion — needing 60 votes — to end debate and oppose the final bill."

Take a look at this other post and perhaps you can clear up this question for me:

Article says abortion battle could still "blow up" health care overhaul...prettiest phrase I've heard all day.

It also says "Reid will need to clear other 60-vote hurdles before senators cast their final vote on the bill."

I know that after the "cloture" that OK s debate and amendments, there's another 60-vote cloture vote "at the other end" to close debate. Is that the only one? Or are there still others?

Could some parliamentarian please lay this out so we will understand where our future 60-vote opportunities are?

[RockinRight]

Lieberman might be the only wild card.

[Ender Wiggin]

You must realize that loss before they can understand.

[cblue55]

There’s no such thing as a conservative in the Democrat party. Blue Dogs are only lap dogs.

[naturalborn]

tried local, tried dc, “all circuits are busy now, please hang up and try your call again...”

[iamweasle]

2010 can’t come fast enough!

[cherry]

you are so right...there will a select group of idiots who could lose their seats if they vote yes, so they will be protected...

they'll killing us and they don't even care...so smug...

my guess is their so smug because they know how to steal every election now, so it'll be ratdome from here on.....

[rightsmart]

I'm not a parliamentarian but this is what I understand about the Senate's rules.

For a bill like “Obamacare” to pass the Senate it must first be brought up for consideration and debate for the entire Senate. This takes 60 votes. At this point amendments can be considered (Nelson's point). I believe this will take place tomorrow (Saturday, November 21).

Debate continues on the bill until they vote to end debate, requiring 60 votes. If they can't get the 60 votes, it is effectively filibustered. The fact is that they could continue to modify and adjust the bill through amendments until Nelson, Lieberman and other Blue dogs accept the changes (and promises for money to their states...).

Once Debate is over, it takes 50 votes to pass.

[mewzilla]

I wonder how much he sold out for?

[PhiKapMom]

McCain is totally against it so his name should not be there. He has been opposed for weeks.

[Category Four]

Once Debate is over, it takes 50 votes to pass.

That last is our only hope.

[PhiKapMom]

You have that right about Stevens since he should never have been put on trial as the US Attorney couldn’t even make the case and it cost us a seat we desperately need right now. More I think about it, the more disgusted I become.

[Mrs. Don-o]

That's how I understood it: 60-vote hurdle to "begin" debate, 60-vote hurdle to "end" debate --- but the article implied "other" possible 60-vote hurdles as well.

There may be more arcane parliamentary do-si-do's available. If you hear of anything, please let me know.

[nikos1121]

I think someone needs to explain in clear terms, instead of spending time on this post ranting and raving what this vote actually means?

If you vote to move the bill forward for discussion, what the H*ll does that mean? What if you say yes, what if you say no?

Does Reid want to lose this vote so he can then move for reconciliation?

[workerbee]

I think you're exactly right, and I've been saying it for months now. There is simply no explanation for Congress' stubborn, utterly contrarian behavior in the face of such overwhelmingly unpopular opinion of this healthcare monstrosity -- except that they know 2010 is a lock for the marxists, and that their "tenuous" seats are perfectly safe... like little ACORNS in a nest, you might say.

Dark, dark days ahead, FRiends.

[Logic n' Reason]

OK all you voters from Nebraska....

There's your target. He's just given you the only reason you need to dump his sorry butt.

The rest of us will be watching.....

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Last I heard Lieberman was going to oppose the bill because of Public Option, but would not vote against cloture. Has something changed?

There are supposed to be 2 cloture votes. The first one is to bring the bill to the floor, the second one is where the "filibuster" usually happens (as in the 2007 GWB amnesty).

"NORMAL" PROCESS:

1) cloture to bring bill to floor, 60 votes

2) cloture to end debate, 60 votes

3) Final vote, 51 votes

Then there is the "reconciliation process," going directly to 51 votes, which some Dems have threatenerd to use, but AFAIK it has never been used on a bill of this kind. According, to Robert Byrd, it's supposed to be only for revenue bills.