In response to my inquiries, the Coakley campaign has told BMG that Martha Coakley supports the Senate health care bill and, given the opportunity, would vote for it.
Martha supports the Senate bill. She believes it represents great progress toward assuring quality, affordable health coverage for all Americans; and she is pleased that the Senate version is presented with a public option and that it does not contain many of the provisions included in the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.
Et vous, Mike?
Discuss
85 Comments . Comments are closed.Et tu
isn't that what Caesar said to Brutus?
It is
But David is using the formal, since he isn't presumably on familiar terms with Mr. Capuano.
since he isn't presumably on familiar terms with Mr. Capuano.
we should try to remedy that.
Et tu is latin not French though, right?
I think it's both.
related languages after all, and yes in Romance languages the plural grammatical form doubles as the formal address for superiors/non-acquaintances. English of course solves the problem by using "you" for both.
no $quot;vous$quot; in Latin
you singular - tu, tui, tibi, te, te you plural - vos, vestri, vobis, vos, vobis
having been kicked out of boston latin school in 9th grade...
...I feel eminently qualified to take part in this discussion:
"Et tu" is indeed what Caesar is said to have exclaimed to Brutus, and "et vous" is decidedly French.
However, while both technically translate to "and you?" they have very different meanings. "Et vous?" - at least in the way I read David to have intended it - is a polite "Here is what this person thinks...and you, Sir? What might your opinion be on this matter?" whereas Caesar's "et tu?" was more of a "Seriously, dude?! YOU'RE in on this crap, too?" Yeah?
I was refering to the singular...
...in response to the "et tu" inquiry above, which I think is the French singular also.
actually..
To be pedantic, It's the line that Will Shakespeare imputed to Caesar upon his death. A wonderful play... but nobody actually knows what Caesar said. Plutarch, and others, claim he said nothing. Though it's true that Caesar spoke Latin, most of the histories we have from that time are in Greek, which was, pardon the semi-pun, the lingua franca of the historians of the day...
'
Charles Winchester
Charles Emerson Winchester, the third...
If you don't mind...
Sorry, Charlie
Oh the irony
She supports it.
Buy it only got there because enough prochoice reps--like Capuano--held their noses and voted for it even though Stupak was included.
Exactly what she and her principles were against.
early
After it passes the motion to proceed Saturday in the Senate, this bill will be debated and "countless" Amendments will be offered and voted on, probably for months on end. It is early to approve this bill with so much to come but It's clear why Coakley wants to voice her opinion on the abortion access issue now.
Not strictly correct
The vote in the House is not a precondition for a vote on a bill in Senate.
The two bills have different language on abortion. It looks like the Senate's version does not has as as far-ranging and disturbing anti-choice provisions as the Stupak language in the House version, so it's not surprising that Coakley, who strongly supports women's right to make their own reproductive choices, would be more comfortable expressing support for it.
Here's the two summaries from the NY Times comparison I cited below.
House version:
Senate version:
the senate decided to not take up their bill
until the house had passed theirs.
But had no requirement or necessity to do so ... n/t
Trickle Up's irony holds.
Trickle Up's irony depends on questionable suppositions
That no better deal could be had in the House, that the Senate would not have gone forward if the House had delayed.
the house deal was known
when Coakley commented so it's clear no better deal could be had in the house. It was also known that the Senate would not proceed until the house passed their bill, no supposition is involved.
No - we don't know that no better deal could emerge from the House
It's not clear at all. We know only that some so-called pro-choice Representatives, like Pelosi and your guy Capuano, caved and voted for the Stupakified version after a marathon session.
We also don't know what the Senate would have chosen to do if the House process had broken down. Either chamber can go first on a bill, there's no necessity or magic to the House going first.
Who says a better deal was to be had on HR3962
in the house beside Coakley? Clyburn, the majority whip, disagrees with your and her opinion.
Snort. What do you think House Democratic leadership would say
After the Stupak amendment blew up in their faces?
"Yeah, I guess we could have done better, but we didn't really understand all the implications of the language - the bill is so long and it was getting so late."
We'll hopefully get to see for sure if a better deal is possible if the Senate passes their bill. I suspect it will be.
It's a different bill...
It's a different bill.
Stupak-Pitts keeps separate the public option from abortion: it attempts to absolutely forbid insurance companies that receive pubic funds from funding abortions.... The senate bill does not have this provision.
It's a different bill. The House votes on their bill and the Senate votes on another, entirely different, bill. Then they have a conference committee and 'reconcile' the bills. If the Senate bill passes then the process of 'reconciliation' will occur and which provision, Stupak-Pitts or the Senate version, will be included in the final bill the president signs will be handled by a conference committee.
In case you didn't get it, it's a different bill... And it's a bill that Martha Coakley would support and a position that is, in no way (ironic or otherwise), contradicts prior statements or positions.
Answer this
Where would we be without the vote in the House, that she would have voted against?
Would we be talking about a Senate bill?
you're not paying attention...
There are almost always two versions of any give bill in question. Always. That's how the House and Senate work. I don't know where you've been, but I've been following both bills for some time: the Senate bill was in committee in July and the Dems spent August plying Olympia Snowe with candy and roses in the hopes of getting her to vote for it... It was in all the papers...
I understand
how it works, but you are not answering the question.
Would the Senate have taken up their bill if the House did not pass their own version of HCR reform? Simple question.
Sure. Why wouldn't they?
because it was their strategy to pass a bill in the house
before taking up the Senate bill. That said, there's nothing that says they wouldn't have adjusted strategy if they saw an better path to passage.
I'm guessing if the House bill had failed,
they would have adjusted their strategy. But who knows.
I guess
we should leave health care reform to the "who knows" strategy then...
i think
if they couldn't have gotten a bill out of the house say in four more weeks of work, they might have gone forward in the Senate hoping a finished bill in the Seante and time would help them get a bill out of the house.
Apparently, you don't understand...
The Senate took up their bill in August and waited to schedule a vote on their bill until after the HoR voted on theirs. The debate, amendments and all that have already been done. This is the penultimate vote. The final vote occurs after reconciliation and will be THE BILL that gets sent to the White House for POTUS to sign.
The abortion language in the Senate bill, besides having been in there from the get-go, is about par when it comes to how we presently treat abortions and insurance. It represents no change whatsoever wrt abortions, that's why it hasn't been controversial in the slightest....
... so it's not like some Senators got a hotfoot because of Stupak-Pitts and raced to insert new language in the Senate bill... didn't happen. It's not even a question.
Of course it is a valid question
You answer the question actually. For the bill to get to conference the House and Senate have to pass their own versions, and if the House hadn't passed theirs the Senate...
So if if the House didn't pass their version, the Senate would not have scheduled their vote.
That wasn't hard.
switch and bait...
Wait... was that the bait... or the switch??
You said "take up their bill" which is action distinct from a vote. They 'took up the bill' in July. Now they vote on it. You've spent the better part of this thread implying that the Senate is reacting to the House vote, and that somehow that reflects poorly on Martha Coakley... I've been refuting you all the while, and suddenly you claim victory.
Fine. You win. If it'll get you to shut up: you win.
of course the
Senate is reacting to the House vote. What about "wait for House to vote" is not reacting to the House vote? Are you kidding with your ignorance?
It is not about winning. Martha Coakley wants to weigh in on a debate she would have voted to stop. Simple as that.
strange definition of 'reacting' you have there...
post hoc, ergo propter hoc. More Latin!
Nothing that the HoR did caused the Senate to make any alterations, changes, conversions, betterments, amendments, modifications, additions, deviations, retouchs, improvements, revisions, edits, meliorations, refinements, corrections, alignments, reductions, differentiation and reworkings. None at all.
It's merely a question of timing, The HoR votes, then the Senate. But to suggest, as you have continuously done, that the Senate waited for the HoR to do something, before doing anything at all themselves, is disengenuous in the extreme.
Wow. You're a real piece of work, aintcha...? Perhaps you should re-read the lede here. Here it is so's you don't mistake my meaning:
So, just in case you really are as dense as you appear, let me highlight the relevant portions, again:
"by: David In response to my inquiries, the Coakley campaign..."
It's hardly fitting for you to suggest that Martha Coakley is trying to 'weigh in' when she's merely answering a query.
I don't believe that's correct
The report I heard on WBZ radio described the scheduled vote Saturday as one to open debate. Then it's open game for amendments and such and it could last for weeks.
it's not correct
It is true the committees have produced their own bills through mark-up sessions and voted to pass them out of committeee. its true the leader merged the bills and had them scored by CBO.
I think the leader inserted his own abortion language to strike a balance that will hopefully work for the Stupak group and the pro-choice group.
Saturday vote is to open debate. There will be a long and obstruction oriented debate on the floor including proposed amendments to the bill. These could take weeks or months.
When the leader has the votes for cloture (to end ddebate), and not before, they take that vote.
hmm...
While it's always possible that I'm mistaken, my understanding is that the length of the debate will be a function of Republican stall tactics and/or filibustering.
I don't know what the process of amendments are, but I do know that such processes have already occured and that it is my understanding, possibly incorrect, true.. that once the CBO has scored it the amendment process is more or less closed. Scoring the bill being so important, not to mention difficult, it doesn't make sense to score it, then amend it...
then what is the purpose of debate if not to amend the bill?
Leiberman hopes to have the public option removed from the bill by floor debate then a vote on his amendment to remove the public option.
Amendments are the process by which the bill gets changed through debate, just as they are the process by which the bill was created in committee.
I wouldn't mind the condescending tone you take with me and others so much if you were right all the time.
interesting...
My understanding, the right to flaws therein which I reserve, is that Lieberman will vote to filibuster in order to stop the bill as it stands, forcing a wholesale revisit of the entire process.
True enough. And, as I said, I may indeed be mistaken. I don't think, however, that I am.
I use words with precision, employ proper grammar, complete my sentences and I don't suffer fools gladly. While I'm certainly not above the occasional jibe at particularly egregious examples of idiocy, I don't consider this condescension. Those are my standards and I don't lower them for anyone. So, whatever my tone means to you probably has more to do with your defensive crouch than any particular attempt to offend on my part.
match the phrase with the author
Apparently, you don't understand... where have you been...? you're not paying attention... Selective attention is such a handicap...
Thank you
This was really getting on my nerves.
what is getting on your nerves?
The question stands, would the Senate be debating their version of the bill today if the House vote went down?
Oh sure, let me get my crystal ball right out and get you an answer
You ask "would the Senate be debating their version of the bill today if the House vote went down?"
My crystal ball says that the House vote was never going to go down. Pelosi was not going to hold a vote unless she was sure she would win. It was either going to pass or be delayed. The real question is, did Pelosi and her minion Capuano give up too much for the votes of the Stupak block? I think yes. I think Pelosi could have done a little better.
My crystal ball also begs to point out that the Senate isn't debating their version today. The Senate bill has to pass a cloture vote first for debate to begin. That vote is likely to take place on Saturday. Reid is sounding optimistic about it, but it isn't a sure thing.
Whatever could have happened in the House - delay of vote, a no vote (which I contend would never have been allowed to happen), the Senate could if it wished still proceed to debate its version of the bill. There are two bills, each on its own track through its respective chamber.
If both houses pass health reform bills, they'll need to be reconciled in conference committee, and then the resulting combined bill passed by a majority of both chambers. If and when that happens, and if the resulting bill follows the Senate's rather than the House's language on abortion, we won't need my trusty crystal ball any more. We'll know for sure if a better deal can be had.
it is a different bill
it is also true the Senate was not going to take up its bill until the house passed it's bill.
where have you been...?
Selective attention is such a handicap...
The Senate decided NOT TO VOTE on their version until after the House but they've been debating it since July... Don't you recall the bending over backwards for Olympia Snowe bit...?
The Senate version has been more or less intact, But not discussed much until the version was scored by CBO and Harry Reid scheduled a vote on it. If the CBO had scored it too high (it's actually way low...) they may have shelved it or put it back in committee...
The Democrats decided to pass a bill in the house
before they took up the combined HELP and Finance bill on the floor of the Senate. That was their choice, part of their strategy.
No need for the condescending tone regarding selective attention or having a handicap, ("Selective attention is such a handicap... " ) I live-blogged two finance committee markup sessions and I am aware of the progress of the bill in the Senate.
New York Times has posted a good summary of the House & Senate bills
It has a side-by-side for each on major components - here's the link.
Way too easy
for Martha to say that "she's in" now on the healthcare bill. The vote was a week ago and it's weak to come out now when it's safe to do so.
It is Weak
It is also politically convenient as well. Hard to stomach her support when the hard work was already done and she wouldn't have done it. She stood with special interests who wanted to block the progress of the bill, either because she didn't know FULLY how the process works, or because she was and is easily coerced by Emily's list.
It's a different bill
argh
Okay
So what would have happened if the House did NOT pass the bill a few weeks ago?
you mean if there were three more $quot;Coakley votes$quot; on HR3962?
it's possible it could have been killed for another decade or longer
What scenario are we considering?
How about this one? Progressives hold firm, Pelosi delays the vote, intensive negotiations continue, a week later the House passes a bill with abortion language more like what's in the Senate bill.
I don't buy that Pelosi allows a vote on the bill she isn't sure she wins. I don't see a scenario in which the bill goes down to defeat in the House.
inventive but counterfactual
and to think, all it took was intensive negotiations.
The blue dogs are the ones with the most to worry in the event of health reform flame out
It isn't the progressives in safe districts that will risk being swept out by Republican challengers.
Pelosi had a good hand - she should have played it better.
Coakley $quot;approved$quot; Reid's combined bill from HELP and Finance
not HR 3962 from the house. If it passes the procedural vote to get it to the floor for debate, Saturday at 8pm, it will be subject to amendments. There is little doubt Republicans will try to amend every aspect of the bill including abortion access and the public option ...hold on tight.
BFD
This is almost entirely in the hands of the Democrats. The Republicans have little leverage over amendments and the process of changing the bill now. It's too late for that. They simply don't have the numbers to affect significant changes via amendments. They can try to slow it down or stall it altogether, but the only real hope they have left is the filibuster, and that's not much of ahope, really...
We do have to worry about the conservative Democrats
like Nelson, Landrieu and Lincoln and "independent" Democrats like Liebermann, though.
true, that...
Senate voting margin
Lieberman has said he will vote against cloture on debate (vote to filibuster) if the bill contains the public option.
Nelson-NE has said he may vote against cloture on debate if the bill contains the public option. He's undecided.
They are both in the 60 senator democratic caucus, all of which much vote yes to end debate so they can vote on passage.
Passage requires 50 yes votes plus Biden.
I don't think Landrieu or Lincoln have threatened to filibuster (vote no on cloture) and I don't think their votes are necessary for a 50 vote majority for passage.
Coakley would vote for the bill Reid released ...
You know the one the Senate wouldn't have been able to release because she wanted the bill killed in the House.
Woo hoo!!!
Good enough for the general election I guess.
See above
The bills are different in their abortion language. A Stupakified bill should be voted down. The Senate version is better - if it survives with current language to a final vote.
See Below ...
Health Care Reform would be dead with Coakley's position. She would have killed it in the house. This has been repeated on multiple occasions. You can't just ignore it. I read that David noted that the Senate could take up the bill themselves but would "have to adjust their strategy". Well that strategy is to have a bill without any revenue source as the house is the only body that can include a tax as part of a bill. There is really no plausible way the Senate could do this on their own.
Did you know
that the Senate health care bill is not even HR 3962? Here's how it starts:
And it goes on for 2,000 more pages.
That's right: the Senate health care bill is an "amendment in the nature of a substitute" for a bill modifying the first-time homebuyers' credit. I am no parliamentary whiz, but I'm sure that's not an accident. And I suspect that even if the House had voted "no" on HR 3962, there was another choice. Schoolhouse Rock doesn't quite cover all the options that a clever parliamentarian has available. So I'd suggest not saying that there was "really no plausible way" for the Senate to move forward unless you are very sure of your Senate rules.
Thanks David, I have to agree that I don't know all the Senate rules ...
or begin to know what they have available to them, so you have me there.
At the end of the day the same bill does need to be voted on by the House and Senate and I'll change my wording to realistically if the house killed health care reform it would be over. There is a reason the house fought for a bill to be passed.
You are right, in theory (and more than I understand) the Senate could do more, but in real life, it wasn't going to happen. Coakley's statement to kill health care reform in the house was pretty dumb, no way around that.
Did you even read the comments above?
Or is the Capuano campaign sending you all a daily memo with talking points to blog whether germane, repetitive, accurate or not? Just for the low quality of the conversation with the Cap crowd alone, I'm glad to be supporting Coakley.
Bean meet Frank ...
For goodness sake, look in the mirror.
It's not too late, actually have a discussion with the normal give and take and accept facts.
JohnK, I think the Cap folks more resemble the 'dining room furniture' in this debate
At least three Cap supporters in this thread appear to have trouble understanding that action in the house is not prereq to action by the Senate, that there are different bills proceeding in each house, and that anti-reproductive choice provisions in the Senate bill are less invidious than the ones in the House bill. These are the facts.
Barney's fun to watch isn't he?
that's not nice of johnk to
compare your responses to the Lyndon Larouch-ite's conversation with Barney Frank. I'm glad you were able to brush it off by comparing the people you disagree with to dining room furniture.
Nonetheless, refusing to acknowledge that the Democratic caucus decided as a matter of strategy to pass the House bill before moving the Senate bill to the floor, and that if Coakley were in the house and she had gotten her way, that would have been the end of health care reform.
You don't have to take it on my advice, you can take on Martha's:
I think what she's saying here is that if she were informed, she wouldn't have staked out her position to vote against the bill, and that its someone else fault for not explaining the strategy and telling her this was the only way to move forward. She got it, she got it after the fact. Why cant you?
I've commented at length above on my view
That if the votes weren't there in the House, the vote would have been postponed and more dealing would have ensued.
It isn't 'not getting' - it's 'not agreeing'. Your lame attempt to lay your own preferred interpretation over a Coakley interview question doesn't change that.
let someone say
Martha Coakley:
Let is be said, let it be written.
statement up from Capuano
On his web site:
Pretty much what I expected. His "process of reviewing" includes getting the bill to his trusted experts for their take.
David, can you post Capauno's statement as an update in the body of the post?
No, because
it's noncommittal. When he has something to say beyond that he's paying "careful attention," I'll update.
it seems to me whether its committal or not
its Capuano's statement and as such it should be posted and subject to readers review, to be praised for its merits and criticized for its inefficiencies.
Jeez, where's Sagan to attack Capuano for issuing a statement
Without a definitive ruling on all aspects of the bill? There was a long and tedious set of comments from him attacking Coakley for effectively the same type of prelim statement.
you misepresented my issue with Coakley's statement
free to skip over long and tedious comments
Oh no, I didn't misrepresent
I just called you out for your relentless (and tedious) shilling.
what happens now in the Senate
Pulling down (I can't deal with the indents!) a comment from petr above, regarding the Senate bill:
A quote from Harry Reid in Time:
So it doesn't sound like it's all been done.
More context from the article:
You do understand why that gets you a zero, right?
Here's a snippet from the Rules of the Road just in case you don't understand.
You allege this comment is against the rules? i don't think so.
Instead of bitching about things you think I should address - "Where's Sagan to attack Capuano..." - why don't you bitch about them yourself? You clearly have the temperament to do it justice.
Yes, Neil... this comment
"why don't you bitch about them yourself? You clearly have the temperament to do it justice."
is just another way of calling me a bitch, which is an insult, a personal attack and rude.
Like many of your comments, this comment lowers the level of discourse here.
sorry you took it that way
"Where's Sagan to attack Capuano?"
So why don't you bitch about Capuano yourself, instead of telling me to do it?
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Wed 23 May 12:14 PM