Massachusetts Legislature on Track to Appoint Kennedy Replacement
The effort to appoint a successor to Ted Kennedy seems to be moving forward with fair speed:
After hours of testy debate, the Massachusetts House of Representatives on Thursday approved legislation allowing Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint an interim successor to Senator Edward M. Kennedy.
The House voted 95 to 58; the measure now goes to the State Senate, which could take up the proposal on Friday. Republicans have threatened to try to delay a vote, and, through procedural maneuvers, could do so for several days.
Mr. Patrick, a Democrat, has said that if both chambers approve the measure, he will appoint a temporary successor to Mr. Kennedy within days. The appointee would serve until a special election on Jan. 19, and could play a crucial role in the fate of health care legislation.
Sixty votes isn't a guarantee of anything, but it's a far better situation than 59 votes. And it gives Democrats negotiating room with Snowe, and Snowe negotiating room with Republicans. Her caucus has less leverage over her if her vote isn't decisive to passage.
By
Ezra Klein
|
September 18, 2009; 11:50 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: What's Wrong With the Finance Bill? An Interview With Sen. Jay Rockefeller.
Next: Government Hearts Homeowners
Posted by: bmull | September 18, 2009 12:01 PM | Report abuse
Great news. You can get a new set of rules anytime it benefits you. You have now officially lost your ability to question the "integrity" of the political process.
Posted by: kingstu01 | September 18, 2009 12:16 PM | Report abuse
We don't need 60 votes for "BaucusCare". We need 60 votes for the elements that can't be done through reconcilliation, and simply votes that are willing to let it go to an up-and-down vote and get it into conference.
BaucusCare isn't going to be the bill that passes the Senate. That's fairly clear. The question is what from HELP and elsewhere gets put back in / expanded, and what gets watered down by the ConservaDems. Both things are going to happen to get it into Conference. How good or bad the bill passed into Conference by the Senate will be... who knows. There are likely going to be a hell of a lot of things we don't like, and they'll be the things that the Blue Dogs will latch onto as "make/break" to retaining their votes post-conference, and that Rahm will push for being caved on.
John
Posted by: toshiaki | September 18, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse
its amazing to me that liberal democrats that have been demonizing private insurers for decades now have them at the table, willing to work with them and will shove them away because of the public option. Any democrat or any congressman or woman that votes against reform because the public option is not included in potential reforms is thumbing their nose at all those of you on here that don't have healthcare now. You can still blame Republicans. But you also need to blame any progressive that votes for no reform vs reform without a public option.
I belive the saying is "cutting off your nose to spite your face"
Posted by: visionbrkr | September 18, 2009 2:13 PM | Report abuse
"its amazing to me that liberal democrats that have been demonizing private insurers for decades now have them at the table, willing to work with them and will shove them away because of the public option. "
The public option is the ONLY legislation that will keep the insurance companies honest. Without it, they will just keep hiring wh*ores like Baucus to weaken the oversight, as happened with OSHA under Reagan.
Posted by: dotellen | September 18, 2009 7:51 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.
There won't be 60 votes anyway for Baucuscare. What incentive does Bernie Sanders have to vote for that? He'd rather lie down and die.
The real scenario is 50 votes through reconciliation. Translation: Zero political cover for health industry shills and long term political suicide for Democrats. They would be better off reviving the public option and holding Obama's base together for the battles to come.