10-22-2009, 05:12 PM
Some senators wary of Obama's health care appeals
Published - Oct 22 2009 05:48PM EDT
By CHARLES BABINGTON - Associated Press Writer
![[Image: 192xX.jpg]](http://hercules.rr.com/media/jpeg/2009/10/21/9281815/192xX.jpg)
FILE - In this Oct. 15, 2009 file photo, Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., is interviewed by the Associated Press in his Capitol Hill office in Washington. Obama and other top Democrats sharply criticized his appointment to the Senate in December by an ethically tainted governor, Illinois' Rod Blagojevich, and they forced Burris to abandon hopes of winning election in 2010 by making it clear they would not back him. Burris, 72, has virtually nothing to lose by defying his party's leaders and voting as he pleases on overhauling the nation's health care system this fall. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)
WASHINGTON— Democrats struggled mightily to obtain their filibuster-proof Senate majority, persuading a Pennsylvania Republican to switch parties and pushing Massachusetts to change its laws to quickly replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.
But with showdown votes approaching on wide-ranging health care proposals, the numbers mask a more complicated reality: President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders have only modest leverage over several pivotal Senate Democrats.
Some of these senators are more concerned about their next election. Others feel they have little to lose by opposing their party's hierarchy.
Democrats and their independent allies control 60 of the Senate's 100 seats. But Democratic leaders' limited leverage will complicate the push for contentious provisions, such as letting the government sell insurance in competition with private companies.
Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln faces a potentially tough re-election race next year in Arkansas, where Obama lost to Republican John McCain by 20 percentage points. She says she will base her health care votes on what is best for Arkansans.
Choice and competition among insurers are good, Lincoln said, but "I've ruled out a government-funded and a government-operated plan."
Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, where Obama lost by a similar margin, said she might be willing to let some states try "fallback or trigger" mechanisms that would create a public option if residents don't have enough insurance choices.
But she told reporters, "I'm not for a government-run, national, taxpayer-subsidized plan and never will be."
Another Democratic senator, who also may prove wary of Obama's overtures, takes the opposite stand.
"I would not support a bill that does not have a public option," said Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill. "That position will not change."
Burris' willingness to bend could prove crucial this fall if Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., need every possible vote in crafting a compromise, such as a national public option that is triggered if certain insurance availability targets aren't met.
But Burris may be in no mood to play ball. Obama and other top Democrats sharply criticized his appointment to the Senate in December by an ethically tainted governor, Illinois' Rod Blagojevich, and they forced Burris to abandon hopes of winning election in 2010 by making it clear they would not back him.
In short, Burris, 72, has virtually nothing to lose by defying his party's leaders and voting as he pleases.
Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut is another potentially crucial senator with tenuous ties to the Democratic Party's hierarchy. Rejected by Connecticut's Democratic voters in the 2006 primary, he kept his Senate seat by running as an independent. He now calls himself an Independent Democrat.
Lieberman has criticized the health care bill that emerged from the Senate Finance Committee, but it and other health bills are undergoing changes.
Another centrist Democrat whose vote is uncertain is Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, a political battleground state.
"I want to know what works for families and small businesses," said Bayh, adding that he might back public insurance options run by states, not the federal government.
It's possible that Obama and party leaders eventually will ask Democrats such as Bayh, in the name of party loyalty, to vote to block a GOP filibuster of a health bill even if they plan to vote against the bill on final passage. The strategy might enable Democrats to muster the 60 votes needed on a crucial procedural question and then pass the bill with a simple majority.
Bayh said that if a party leader "is asking some of us to enable the passage of legislation that we think would be harmful to the people of our state, I don't think that's a fair thing to ask."
It's possible that centrist Democrats are holding out for favors from Obama and party leaders, such as pet projects for their states or help in their next campaign. Obama already has lavished special attention on some of them.
He invited Bayh to the White House last week for a chat about health care and the deficit. In an interview that led to good publicity back home, Bayh told Indiana reporters that the president "was asking for my leadership on both of those issues."
When lawmakers face a tough vote, their uppermost thought is "survival," said Alan Simpson, a Wyoming Republican who spent three terms in the Senate.
On a very few occasions, Simpson said, then-President George H.W. Bush asked him to cast a vote likely to cause him political problems back home. That was perhaps three times in 18 years, said Simpson, who held a GOP leadership post. "I swallowed hard and went over the cliff," he said.
But it's a sacrifice that presidents and party leaders should not count on, he said.
http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/...eals/full/
Published - Oct 22 2009 05:48PM EDT
By CHARLES BABINGTON - Associated Press Writer
FILE - In this Oct. 15, 2009 file photo, Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., is interviewed by the Associated Press in his Capitol Hill office in Washington. Obama and other top Democrats sharply criticized his appointment to the Senate in December by an ethically tainted governor, Illinois' Rod Blagojevich, and they forced Burris to abandon hopes of winning election in 2010 by making it clear they would not back him. Burris, 72, has virtually nothing to lose by defying his party's leaders and voting as he pleases on overhauling the nation's health care system this fall. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)
WASHINGTON— Democrats struggled mightily to obtain their filibuster-proof Senate majority, persuading a Pennsylvania Republican to switch parties and pushing Massachusetts to change its laws to quickly replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.
But with showdown votes approaching on wide-ranging health care proposals, the numbers mask a more complicated reality: President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders have only modest leverage over several pivotal Senate Democrats.
Some of these senators are more concerned about their next election. Others feel they have little to lose by opposing their party's hierarchy.
Democrats and their independent allies control 60 of the Senate's 100 seats. But Democratic leaders' limited leverage will complicate the push for contentious provisions, such as letting the government sell insurance in competition with private companies.
Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln faces a potentially tough re-election race next year in Arkansas, where Obama lost to Republican John McCain by 20 percentage points. She says she will base her health care votes on what is best for Arkansans.
Choice and competition among insurers are good, Lincoln said, but "I've ruled out a government-funded and a government-operated plan."
Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, where Obama lost by a similar margin, said she might be willing to let some states try "fallback or trigger" mechanisms that would create a public option if residents don't have enough insurance choices.
But she told reporters, "I'm not for a government-run, national, taxpayer-subsidized plan and never will be."
Another Democratic senator, who also may prove wary of Obama's overtures, takes the opposite stand.
"I would not support a bill that does not have a public option," said Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill. "That position will not change."
Burris' willingness to bend could prove crucial this fall if Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., need every possible vote in crafting a compromise, such as a national public option that is triggered if certain insurance availability targets aren't met.
But Burris may be in no mood to play ball. Obama and other top Democrats sharply criticized his appointment to the Senate in December by an ethically tainted governor, Illinois' Rod Blagojevich, and they forced Burris to abandon hopes of winning election in 2010 by making it clear they would not back him.
In short, Burris, 72, has virtually nothing to lose by defying his party's leaders and voting as he pleases.
Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut is another potentially crucial senator with tenuous ties to the Democratic Party's hierarchy. Rejected by Connecticut's Democratic voters in the 2006 primary, he kept his Senate seat by running as an independent. He now calls himself an Independent Democrat.
Lieberman has criticized the health care bill that emerged from the Senate Finance Committee, but it and other health bills are undergoing changes.
Another centrist Democrat whose vote is uncertain is Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, a political battleground state.
"I want to know what works for families and small businesses," said Bayh, adding that he might back public insurance options run by states, not the federal government.
It's possible that Obama and party leaders eventually will ask Democrats such as Bayh, in the name of party loyalty, to vote to block a GOP filibuster of a health bill even if they plan to vote against the bill on final passage. The strategy might enable Democrats to muster the 60 votes needed on a crucial procedural question and then pass the bill with a simple majority.
Bayh said that if a party leader "is asking some of us to enable the passage of legislation that we think would be harmful to the people of our state, I don't think that's a fair thing to ask."
It's possible that centrist Democrats are holding out for favors from Obama and party leaders, such as pet projects for their states or help in their next campaign. Obama already has lavished special attention on some of them.
He invited Bayh to the White House last week for a chat about health care and the deficit. In an interview that led to good publicity back home, Bayh told Indiana reporters that the president "was asking for my leadership on both of those issues."
When lawmakers face a tough vote, their uppermost thought is "survival," said Alan Simpson, a Wyoming Republican who spent three terms in the Senate.
On a very few occasions, Simpson said, then-President George H.W. Bush asked him to cast a vote likely to cause him political problems back home. That was perhaps three times in 18 years, said Simpson, who held a GOP leadership post. "I swallowed hard and went over the cliff," he said.
But it's a sacrifice that presidents and party leaders should not count on, he said.
http://www.rr.com/news/topic/article/rr/...eals/full/