U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 25, 2010 06:01 PM UTC

Question for Andrew Romanoff

  • 23 Comments
  • by: peacemonger

We learned the parliamentarian sent the reconciliation bill (the “fix-it” package) back to the House this morning to fix a procedural portion. Content-wise, there may be enough votes for it the way it is. Adding the public option will likely change that, possibly defeating the whole bill.

My question for Andrew: “If all of your talk (and Sirota’s on your behalf) is not grandstanding, but really about getting the public option, why not stand with Senator Michael Bennet and the rest of the Senate (and 186 national groups that support passing reconciliation without it now), and pledge to support a separate public option bill as soon as possible? A thumbs-up or thumbs-down vote on a public option-only bill would protect the rest of the goodies in the recon bill now, and might give you some bragging rights later that it was your idea (it wouldn’t be, but we won’t tell anyone).

So how about it, Mr. Romanoff? Is this really about adding in a public option, or is this about scoring campaign points at the expense of sick people who need more reform now? Speaking on behalf of many families I met this past year who need health insurance desperately, most of us don’t care who gets credit — you or Senator Bennet. We just want our loved ones to go to bed at night without pain and worry. If it is about getting the public option for us, we expect you to stand with Senator Bennet for a separate, stand-alone bill.

Please answer the question. Will you, or will you not, stand with the Senate on a separate public option bill?  The floor is yours, Mr. former Speaker.  

 

Tweet
Share

Comments

23 thoughts on “Question for Andrew Romanoff”

      1. that was spurred on by Bennet’s letter counted 54 votes for the public option in 2009 when we were trying to get a bipartisan bill.

        Currently the count is at 41. Their goal was to get 50 out of the 54 Senators to commit to re-supporting the Public Option – which considering the vote count went from 4 people to 41 in 3 weeks seems very possible.

        To get to 60 however, would be next to impossible.

        Offering the amendment now is the clearest way to get the Public Option.

        and there is really no excuse not to.

        http://www.coloradopols.com/di…

        2. Bennet wrote his letter in 2010, after the 54 you counted in 2009.

          By your math, because the count went from 4 to 41 in three weeks getting to 50 should be easy, hell we were adding almost 14 per week- we just need a fourth week.  By that same reasoning, we’d have just needed a fifth week to get 60. (And just a few more to get 100.)

          Offering the public option now is not necessarily the clearest way to get it, no matter what David (kill the bill and start over) Sirota says.  But if an Amendment is offered, the best place to do it is in the House.  So I’m sure you are pressuring degette and Polis and we’re just not seeing it, right? Because this is all about improving healthcare, not campaign stunting, right?

                1. I’ve been on a public option since the late 80’s – and while it’s not perfect, my complaints have been small.

                  I’ve always endorsed it for everyone.  Set the premiums fairly and it’s a no brainer.

                  Unfortunately, the D voters who favor serious reform have consistently overreached at the wrong time and HCR has been backburnered over and over and over.

                  Until now.  You really  think the best way to get a public option was to amend it into the reconciliation bill? I don’t. Neither did a whole bunch of Senators and other organizations – which doesn’t mean I’m right.  But that I disagree with you and Sirota and FDL and Romanoff doesn’t make me wrong.

                2. but rather over the relative values of competing political strategies. The fact that you and those arguing your side seem unable or unwilling to make that distinction is one of the reasons that you have so far failed to produce any compelling arguments.

                  If you want to argue that the strategy you have been recommending (amending the reconiciliation bill to include a public option) would have been the best strategy, then you have to list all alternative strategies, their relative risks and benefits, and argue why the one you favor is the best. You have never done anything even remotely resembling that.

                  This shallow, dysfunctional game of “you’re against the X if you are against my strategy for achieving X” (which we’ve seen in many incarnations, used by many different kinds of posters, in reference to many different issues) lowers the level of discourse, and produces more noise than wisdom.

                  Let’s raise the level of discourse and have real debates about the issues, making real arguments. I truly want to see those who disagree on various issues do that more and more effectively, even (especially) those who disagree with me. That is how we get to the best policies and the best strategies for implementing them.

        3. I really, really want some of that unicorn fairy dust that (Dick) Morris, Zerota and Andy Liebernoff are apparently snorting.

          It leads to delusions like this: “It only took one senator to make everything just right!”

  2. Because he knew the only way it had a chance to pass was through reconciliation, where only 51 votes are needed.  And didn’t the House already pass a public option once? Yes, and they’ll likely do it again if the Senate shows some leadership.

    Anyone who would actually like to see a public option pass (this clearly doesn’t include those woring with the Bennet campaign), knows reconciliation is the public option’s only chance.

    So what has changed between now and last month when Bennet favored passing a public option through reconciliation?  I think it might have something to do with the special interests reining in their pawn, I mean Senator Bennet.

    1. Then why didn’t anyone in the House add the Amendment?

      And why didn’t Romanoff/Sirota/Hamsher push on Pelosi or Degette or Polis?

      Campaign stunt.

      1. As a member of the Rules Committee and a fundraiser with deep pockets, he would have been even more suited to twist leadership’s arm than Bennet, yet he didn’t go rogue with a public option. Why is that?

        Why don’t we ask Jared … who just sent out this statement:

        “I applaud Senate Democrats for staying united by not succumbing to the Republicans’ delaying tactics and for not amending the bill.  As a long-time supporter of the public option I, more than anyone else, wish it were included in this bill and will make it one of my top legislative priorities in the months ahead.  But any amendments now would open a floodgate that could destroy any chance of this historic bill passing.  Today we cross the finish line to complete healthcare reforms we’ve waited nearly a century to achieve.  Tomorrow we begin work on passing a public option.”

        Y’all do realize this isn’t the last reconciliation bill of the year, right? It’s not the end of the world, or the public option, if it gets a 50+Biden vote later this year — after all, a public option wouldn’t go into effect for a while anyway, so it really doesn’t matter whether it passes this week or later this year.

        2. Obama signed the reform bill into law. It is the law of the land. How do one or a thousand amendments to the reconciliation bill change that? They don’t!

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

124 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!