Hmm, I wonder why he'd do that?
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said Monday he would vote against a reconciliation package that included changes to healthcare reform and student lending legislation.
Nelson said he opposed the package because the student lending bill would make the federal government the originator of student loans, replacing private lending institutions. Nelson said that would cost 30,000 jobs.
Nelnet, a major student lending company, is based in Nebraska.
By GottaLaff
Senator Anti-Choice (D-Not Really) is supporting a health care bill:
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who withheld his support for the Senate-passed healthcare reform bill until practically the last minute, strongly hinted that he is prepared to back the final push to finish the job this spring. [...]
"There are those who’ve said, ‘Well, let’s start all over.’ Well, that’s a very appealing idea but for some, that’s code for doing nothing"
Nelson had been a skeptic of the Democratic healthcare reform proposals since the legislative process began a year ago and voted for the Senate bill only after securing new language designed to prevent federal money from paying for abortion services as well as additional funding for his home state's Medicaid program.
"Reconciliation is really about whether a bill deserves and up-or-down vote when one side is obstructing the process," he said.
By GottaLaff
In the wake of Senate passage of the health care reform bill, President Barack Obama on Thursday called a dozen Senators, including Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), according to a list provided by the White House.Here's an idea of how to reach out to Traitor Joe: Pull his chair(manships) out from under him.
Reid included a provision that allows states to prohibit abortion coverage in the insurance exchanges the bill creates. It's basically a state opt-out, which largely allows Democrats to sidestep the tricky issue by dumping it on the states.More good analysis of the changes here.
The amendment also requires that health plans that provide abortion services segregrate the premiums from any federal money so that federal funds don't pay for abortion services. Similar proposals have come under fire from pro-life groups who call the maneuver a shell game. They argue that because the insurance plans offered through the exchange are eligible for federal subsidies, taxpayer money is still paying for the coverage of abortion.
He's speaking right now, video when I get it. Somehow this doesn't make me feel any better.
WASHINGTON - Sen. Ben Nelson intends to support health care legislation backed by President Barack Obama, giving the measure a 60th and decisive vote, Democratic officials said.
These officials say the Nebraska Democrat will make an announcement later Saturday. Marathon negotiations with the White House and Senate Democratic leaders produced fresh concessions that will mean additional abortion restrictions in the legislation.
Unsubstantiated rumours? Being promoted by Fox? Horrors!!
By GottaLaff
Per Greg Sargent on Twitter (his site is down, so no link):
Ben Nelson will vote for health care bill to proceed to debate, his office announces, but stresses it's NOT a vote for the proposalMore soon.
That man and the squirrel family he keeps on his head need to go. Via Greg.
TPM adds a little jab-The latest: Nelson now says health care reform should have the support of 65 Senators to have credibility with the American people. Nelson also says he will actively oppose any efforts by Dems to do reform alone through the “reconciliation” process.
(snip)
It’s unclear how Nelson settled on the number 65 as his marker. It’s also unclear why health care reform supported by 64 Senators wouldn’t enjoy public confidence, since that number is significantly higher than 51, which would constitute a majority of the upper chamber.
For the record, Nelson first won election in 2000 with just 51% of the vote and won re-election in 2006 just shy of his new superduper legitimacy standard, with 64%.
After living in Miami for a bazillion years, I find this very easy to believe.
A 65-year-old man rallying in favor of healthcare reform was knocked to the ground by a man who disagreed with the call for a government-run health plan outside of a Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce meeting headlined by Sen. Bill Nelson.
Luis Perrero of Coral Gables was standing among about 40 Democratic activists and union workers when a man in a Ford pick-up truck pulled up to the rally at Jungle Island and began arguing with the crowd. The man, who only gave his first name as Raul, said Perrero called him a Spanish curse word. He punched Perrero in the face. Perrero fell to the ground and lay motionless for a few minutes.
"I'm amazed the way this has become such a politicized issue,'' Perrero said, while still sitting on the ground but sitting up. "It shows that people who are against the public option will resort to anything, including battery on a senior citizen to prevent healthcare reform.''
Wilhelmina Ford, another healthcare reform proponent at the rally, said, "It was totally uncalled for. The guy may have had words with him but he didn't have to hit him in the face.''
Fire rescue responded to the scene, where a Herald reporter was present.
By GottaLaff
Via Act Blue:
Act Blue:
Ben Nelson responded. He (outrageously) said that if the grassroots keep pressuring him with ads "then health care reform may be dead by the end of August.” In other words, in his mind, it's all about him.There is so much misinformation being thrown around. It's really not all that hard. Who would you rather control your health care and bank account? Big Fat Corporate Insurance... or you?
By GottaLaff
Noting Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s record on the Second Amendment, Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) told Roll Call that that he is “undecided” on her nomination to the Supreme Court (although he added that he is “leaning toward voting in favor”). Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) expressed similar uncertainty:“I accept her judicial philosophy of fidelity to the law,” Nelson said during a telephone conference call from Washington.
Nelson said he also believes Sotomayor is committed to supporting settled judicial precedent.
But, he said, he needs to “convince myself she won’t be an activist” on the court.
“I need an opportunity to review a few things,” the Democratic senator said.
Both senators’ equivocal statements come in the wake of the NRA’s decision to “score” the Sotomayor vote in determining where each lawmaker stands on the NRA’s pro-gun agenda. The NRA claims, falsely, that because Sotomayor once upheld a New York law against a Second Amendment challenge this somehow proves that she is hostile to gun rights. That decision, however, did nothing more than apply well-established law. [...]
In the end, Begich and Nelson’s decision may be decided — not by Sotomayor’s actual record — but by how afraid they are of the NRA.
ConservaWusses.
By GottaLaff
The Internets are a bitch, aren't they...?Remember this?
President George W. Bush signed into law Thursday the first major piece of legislation of his presidency, a $1.35 trillion tax cut over 10 years.Of the six senators begging President Obama to slow down health care reform, four of them -- Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Susan Collins (R-ME) -- voted for those huge Bush tax cuts.
Their votes were cast on May 26, 2001. Bush signed the tax cuts into law on June 7, 2001. Here we are in mid-July, eight years later, struggling to get health care reform passed by the end of the year.
So whatever these four foot-draggers are saying about why they want health care reform slowed down (and Nelson, for one, was all over the place yesterday warning against "rushing into this"), it's not really about wanting to be more deliberative or avoid ballooning the deficit. All you have to do is look back to 2001. Their records speak for themselves.
By GottaLaff
...Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) declared that he was against including a public option in health care reform, calling it a “deal breaker.”But:
Keep withholding that cash, folks.Nelson, according to two people in the room, told the group that he was open to a public option, the primary Democratic goal of reform and anathema to conservatives.
“The good news for all sides involved is that he’s open minded,” said Barry Rubin, the former Executive Director for the Nebraska Democratic Party, who was in the meeting. “He’s not closed minded about a public option.”
Jane Kleeb, a top Democratic powerbroker in Nebraska, said Nelson’s openness to a public option was the biggest takeaway from the meeting.
“He made it clear that he is open to the public option. That’s not a line in the sand where he says it must be off the table for him to move forward on health care reform,” she said.
Grim notes that Nelson had previously softened his position on the public option. After calling it a “deal breaker,” he told Huffington Post that he was “open to listening” to Sen. Charles Schumer’s (D-NY) proposals for striking a compromise on a public plan. Nelson is being targeted by Change Congress “in a mailing and Internet ad campaign asking people to withhold their political contributions to him and other members of Congress.”
By GottaLaff
No word yet on whether Nelson considers Sotomayor an activist. Yesterday, in response to Obama's nomination, the senator issued a cautious statement ending thusly:
"Concerning Judge Sotomayor’s nomination, I look forward to examining her entire record and commitment to upholding the law and Constitution of the United States in the coming weeks."
There's really no clear definition as to what exactly is an activist judge according to Nelson, but apparently none of President George W. Bush's nominees were. Nelson was the only Democrat to vote for Janice Rogers Brown, one of Bush's most conservative and controversial judicial picks, and was one of only a couple of Democrats who supported Samuel Alito and John Roberts for the Supreme Court and John Bolton for UN ambassador. Nelson also backed both John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General.
That was just one excerpt. Follow the link for the rest.
By GottaLaff
Two major WTF Moments:
First, this:
Nelson declared that trials of Guantanamo detainees should not take place in the United States and detainees should not be imprisoned here. He distinguished between terrorists like the Blind Sheikh — who “committed violations of American law” — and those at Guantanamo to say the latter should be kept out of the U.S. [...]Nelson also seemed to suggest that torture — or “enhanced techniques,” as he called it — could be used in the future:
NELSON: What we need to do is make sure that the intelligence information that’s gathered is accurate, that we do everything within our power to get good intelligence, and it may or may not consist of coming from enhanced techniques.
Is he serious? Why even bother being a Democrat? Did he not hear the words of those who actually did the interrogating (Ali Soufan comes to mind)... the very same people who said it didn't work, and that the prisoners were more cooperative when the questioners treated them as, you know, human beings?
Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Ben Nelson warned the president against appointing an activist judge to replace the retiring David Souter. In the process, the Nebraska Democrat acknowledged that the scenario could present itself where he joined the GOP in voting against cloture. [...]
Earlier in the interview, he said that as the "author of the words 'extraordinary circumstances'" - the phrase that, per the 2005 compromise, now serves as a the basis of the filibuster attempt - "I do understand that there could be certain circumstances where you might vote against somebody on the filibuster."
This is exactly why I've been saying all along that, that just because we have 59 (or even potentially 60) Democrats in the Senate, there is no guarantee that we'd have a filibuster-proof majority. I've always maintained that the Conservadems would be a problem.
This is one time I have no desire to be right.
By GottaLaff
In a couple of recent posts, I've brought up Dawn Johnsen as someone who should get confirmed without any further delay. Didn't we just know that the Rushpublics would do their level best to block her? Why would they do that? This is why. It's not about her position on abortion, it's about her (perfectly appropriate) approach to justice and our legal system, meaning: They're terrified.
Well, well, well, guess which unsurprising move by the Rushpublics is about to cut the Democrats off at the knees:
Roll Call reports that conservatives look poised to successfully block the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to head the White House Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) declared that his hands were tied without the assistance of a few Republican votes:“Right now we’re finding out when to do that,” Reid said, responding to a question about the status of Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen’s nomination to the Justice post. “We need a couple Republican votes until we can get to 60.”
Three words: Senator Al Franken.
It’s unclear why 60 votes are needed to confirm Johnsen, considering her predecessor, Jay Bybee — who went on to authorize illegal torture — won easy confirmation in 2001 through a simple voice vote. Bybee’s successor, Jack Goldsmith, was also approved by a voice vote. Steven Bradbury served for three years as an acting OLC head, and so did not have to come up for a vote. Having a full — and filibuster-proof — Senate vote on Johnsen would be an unusual break with recent precedent. [...]
Johnsen is eminently qualified to head the OLC. She has been an outspoken critic of Bush’s torture and eavesdropping programs, argues persuasively for accountability for wrongdoing, and has written passionately in support of checks and balances and against executive branch power grabs. She is a strong progressive candidate who could restore the tainted OLC to a place of legal professionalism and pride. And, like the majority of Americans, Johnsen thinks abortions should be safe and legal in most cases.
Specter and Nelson can find little in Johnsen’s sterling record to substantively critique, and Reid shouldn’t let them stand in the way. Indeed, their opposition to her breaks their track record for supporting previous OLC heads like Bybee. Remember, when Bush nominated Bybee for a federal judgeship, Specter, Nelson, Cornyn, and Reid all voted to confirm him.
We are so getting bent over by our own side. Via Greg-
Conservative Democratic Senator Ben Nelson is all but certain to vote against Johnsen, Nelson spokesperson Clay Westrope tells me. Westrope confirms that while Nelson will take into account any further information that emerges, the Senator cannot now envision a scenario under which he’d support her — potentially making it an uphill climb to get her confirmed.
Johnsen is an important nomination: The OLC is the office where the torture memos were produced, and Obama’s pick of Johnsen cheered many liberals because it signaled a desire for his lawyers to aggressively articulate what the law allows. Johnsen has written that OLC lawyers should be “prepared to resign” if the White House ignores their opinions.
Johnsen has been under relentless attack by Republicans who claim her harsh legal criticism of Bush’s war on terror proves she’s weak on national security and cite her previous pro-choice statements as proof she’s an ideological hard-liner. But now a Democrat is echoing the latter criticism. Westrope emails:
“Senator Nelson is very concerned about the nomination of Dawn Johnson, based on her previous position as Counsel for NARAL. He believes that the Office of Legal Counsel is a position in which personal views can have an impact and is concerned about her outspoken pro-choice views on abortion.”
By GottaLaff
Go here to read more of Ezra Klein's analysis, but here's a teaser:
The numbers on the Y axis represent how conservative of a Democrat each senator was. So #1 would be the most conservative Senate Democrat and #5 the fifth most conservative Senate Democrat and so on. The blue line is Bayh. The red line is [Ben] Nelson.
Paddy started this convo here..jpg)
