You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1229)

PLAYS: (742)

(h/t Heather)

I can see that Ben Nelson and the Conservadems/Baucus Dogs have a plan. They bitch and moan about the effect a public option would have on the poor, poor health-insurance industry, so if they do have to vote for a public option in the Senate that clearly benefits Americans and not his favorite donors, they will only do it under the provision that the states "opt in" rather than "opt out."

His hair has been saying this for a while now.

Nelson's hair doesn't explain why he favors the "opt in" version and Harwood doesn't bother to ask. And he can count on the media to not inform America what the differences are in an opt in or an opt out version of the PO so when we complain about it the Villagers will attack us. He was interviewed by John Hardwood, a Villager of the highest order on MSNBC.

Here's what Ben Nelson's hair said:

Harwood: You'd agree that unless a comprehensive health care bill would pass that it would cripple his presidency.

Nelson's hair: Well, I don't know that we should conclude that some form of health care reform won't pass. I believe that some form of health care will pass.

Harwood: What in your mind are stoppers, things that, knowing this place, things that either because you oppose them or other senators oppose them, simply can 't be in the final product to have it pass?

Nelson's hair: Well, it's very difficult to see how that CLASS Act that was in the HELP committe bill would make it [that's long term care provisions] I think also any kind of public option that would undermine or destabilize the private insurance that 200 million Americans have, I don't see that that would make it. But some version such as an opt-in, for the states with a state option, that could very well be in.

Digby alerted me to this clip and she astutely writes:

But I am still suspicious that there might be a play to make opt-in the reasonable alternative to opt-out. It just keeps cropping up in all kinds of places, often from White House reporters. It's worth keeping an eye on anyway.

Harwood thinks that Nelson will stick with them on cloture and I haven't heard otherwise. (and if Harwood asked him he didn't say, the putz.) But he certainly keeps dangling himself out there as a vote for opt-in, so if this thing really comes down to the wire I could see it happening. Again, I don't think the village media have clue about just how different the two things are. It's just bumper sticker slogans to them.

The Hill reports that Sheldon Whitehouse also trumpeted the same thing.

The Senate health bill is drifting toward ending up with an "opt-in" provision versus an "opt-out," one Democratic senator said Friday.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) predicted that healthcare reform in the upper chamber would shift from its current construction, which allows states to opt out of a public option, to a version that forces states to opt into such a plan.

"I think it's falling into an opt-in, versus opt-out," Whitehouse said during an appearance on MSNBC. "You have a public option, but it's up to a state to take an affirmative act to take advantage of it."
Whitehouse suggested the opt-in as a potential compromise on the public option to win enough Democratic votes in the Senate, where Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has said he will vote against a bill containing a public option, and several other centrist Democrats have been reluctant to support the current proposal.

I'm doing some digging around to see what's really happening and I'll have news soon. Reid is already having the "opt out" scored by the CBO, but my sources indicated that the Senate has not sent out the "opt in" to be scored. From what I'm hearing. The "opt in" would not pass the House conference.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1084)

PLAYS: (480)

(h/t Heather)

I've been hearing from my sources that the ConservaDems in the House of Lords (The Senate) would rather have states be able to "opt in," rather than "opt out," of the public option in health-care reform. No matter how you feel about these proposals, the one Ben Nelson supports is a far, far worse plan than the other. Here's what he said on CNN's State of The Union:

KING: If there is a vote and Harry Reid needs 60, have you promised him, even if you disagree with the proposal and might vote no on the proposal, you would give him your vote on the procedural issue?

NELSON: I have made no promise. I can't decide about the procedural vote until I see the underlying bill. It would be, I think, reckless to say I'll support the procedure without knowing what the underlying bill consists of. And it's not put together yet. It's a draft -- it will be a draft bill some time next week, submitted the Congressional Budget Office for the review of the cost. And until I've seen a completed draft...

KING: Well, let me -- let me jump in, can you support...

NELSON: ... I'm not going to...

KING: Can you support a public option where states could opt out so there is a public option in the federal legislation, or will you only support a public option where the state would have to opt in, so there is not a national program already created?

NELSON: Well, I certainly am not excited about a public option where states would opt out or a robust, as they call it, robust government-run insurance plan. I'll take a look at the one where states could opt in if they make the decision themselves.

I understand what the other Senators are trying to do with the opt-out proposal -- which comes down to guaranteeing the public option an uphill, state-by-state battle -- but Ben Nelson in particular continually thwarts every effort to include a robust public option in America. I think he uses health insurance payoffs as a form of roughage to keep his bowels clear. And he still won't say if he'll give us an up-or-down vote. Schmuck.

Nelson must be looking to become a health insurance lobbyists once he leaves the Senate and since he takes the most cash from them---I imagine he has a gig already lined up.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (766)

PLAYS: (2246)

Chris Matthews unloads on Jim Dean, brother of Gov. Howard Dean, and chair of Democracy for America, for DFA's ads targeting Sen. Ben Nelson on health care reform.

Matthews: That's what you're saying.

Dean: I understand what you're saying. We're challenging him.

Matthews: No, I'm saying what you're saying, not what I'm saying. You're trying to kill this guy, so he'll turn around, squirm in bed a while and do what you want him to do.

Dean: We're not trying to kill this guy. What we're trying to do is challenge him to get involved and engage the voters in this debate and we're pointing out as a material fact...

Matthews: Okay. I'm smirking because you're obviously writing the ad. You're writing the copy and yet you're coming on this show and giving us the foreplay and the soft sell.

Matthews goes on to carry water for watered down health care reform in the name of getting something done and asks if Dean's organization wants to get it all or nothing, and why they're trying to "destroy" Ben Nelson. He then pretends to be quoting members of Ben Nelson's family asking about the attacks on him.

Matthews: Okay, what do you think Sen. Nelson of Omaha thinks of your ad as he watches himself described as the enemy of health care reform? A guy in bed with the Mutual of Omaha and the rest of those insurance companies out there in Omaha, uh, how would you think he thinks you're doing to him?

Dean: I think Sen. Nelson should think about the fact that...

Matthews: Should? We're into the subjunctive now. I asked you what you think he thinks of your ad and he gets on, his kids get on, they watch his grandkids, I assume watch, everybody's checking in on your ads and you're blasting away at this guy. Daddy, grandpa, aren't you a liberal Democrat? Aren't you a Democrat? Why are they attacking you?

Liberal Democrat huh? Who in the hell do you think you're kidding Chris?

The netroots has made a huge stand for health care reform and we're not sitting around doing nothing. Blue America hit Blanche Lincoln hard which forced her to write an op-ed in Arkansas to try and redefine her position and now the PCCC and DFA just hit Ben Nelson in an action called: Health care Can't Wait. Lincoln, who is up for re election took an approach in which she informed her constituents that she's considering the public option now which is a good start, but Ben's response was to cry, stomp his feet and declare that health care reform will be killed if Americans stand up and demand that he be part of the solution.

Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) lashed out Friday at the ads being run against his position on health care reform in his home state, saying they would backfire -- and might even derail the entire reform process.

In a statement issued late in the afternoon by Nelson's office, spokesman Jake Thompson warned that if the new series of ads calling out the Senator's "stalling" on reform were "an indication of the politics going into August, then health care reform may be dead by the end of August."

"Nebraskans don't need outside special interest groups telling them what to think. Senator Nelson has nothing but praise for Nebraska groups working toward health care reform. Unfortunately, he says, these outside groups undermine the sincere and dedicated efforts of people in our state," Thompson wrote. "Recently, similar ads have run in Nebraska. Those ads by other special interests prompted hundreds of Nebraskans to call our offices, with 9 to 1 urging Senator Nelson to do exactly the opposite of what the special interest group wanted. In short, the ads backfired."

Politicians who dare to say that they will kill health care because the American people want change just proves our point about the gasbags that reside in Washington that rule our country for themselves and not for the people they were elected to represent.

Olive Willis:

They seem to think that the support they got in 2006 and beyond is going to keep them up if they just have a (D) behind their names. Conservative democrats who obstruct meaningful progress in Washington are the political equivalent of Bush Republicans, and they’ll be treated that way.

Do your job, Senator.

We will not back down and we will not go away. Blanche Lincoln will hear from us shortly too.
PCCC and DFA are doing their part and so are we. Please donate to Blue America's Health Care Choice so we can keep the pressure on.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (81)

PLAYS: (136)

This doesn't sound good.

SCHULTZ: And finally, my sources on Capitol Hill—going to health care now, Chuck—are telling me that in the Senate, the public option is in serious trouble.

Are you hearing that?

TODD: I‘ve heard the same thing. You know, in the Finance Committee, Kent Conrad, who‘s the guy that sort of created the idea for the co-op, what I would advise you, Ed, is get to know what this co-op is going to do.

I‘ve talked to some who are big advocates of the public insurance option who believe they can do things within the framework of this co-op that will make folks who are supporters of the public—overall big public option feel better about this. But the fact of the matter is, you‘re not going to get Grassley. You might not get Ben Nelson. You might not get Kent Conrad for anything that‘s called a public insurance option.

And the “co-op” may be just better language to use and easier to sell in some of these places. So, as somebody said, it can walk like a duck, it can quack like a duck. You just can‘t call it a duck. And so, “co-op” may be the language of choice here.

Kent Conrad and Chuck Todd obviously think we're all dumb as stumps.

Zappatero at DKos:

A simple word of advice from me to our United States Senators on health care reform and their "centrist" colleagues: just say "No" to Ben Nelson if he comes a-callin' with scary stories about getting all our citizens covered by health insurance this year:

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said he planned to urge the president not to force an arbitrary August deadline on health care reform.

Arbitrary?

Because 15 years after the last attempt at meaningful health care reform is too soon?

Maybe the 44 years after Lyndon Johnson signed the Medicare Act is rushing it for Senator Nelson.

Arbitrary could be the 64 years since Truman said this:

In my message to the Congress of September 6, 1945, there were enumerated in a proposed Economic Bill of Rights certain rights which ought to be assured to every American citizen.

One of them was: "The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health." Another was the "right to adequate protection from the economic fears of . .. sickness ...."

Millions of our citizens do not now have a full measure of opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health. Millions do not now have protection or security against the economic effects of sickness. The time has arrived for action to help them attain that opportunity and that protection.

The people of the United States received a shock when the medical examinations conducted by the Selective Service System revealed the widespread physical and mental incapacity among the young people of our nation. We had had prior warnings from eminent medical authorities and from investigating committees. The statistics of the last war had shown the same condition. But the Selective Service System has brought it forcibly to our attention recently--in terms which all of us can understand.

As of April 1, 1945, nearly 5,000,000 male registrants between the ages of 18 and 37 had been examined and classified as unfit for military service. The number of those rejected for military service was about 30 percent of all those examined. The percentage of rejection was lower in the younger age groups, and higher in the higher age groups, reaching as high as 49 percent for registrants between the ages of 34 and 37.

Wow, didn't realize the Republican "military lovers" could've killed that proposal -- even with Harry Truman's base militaristic pandering and the shadow of WWII looming over all of us.

Sadly, this self-interest of Nelson (to the detriment of America) only fuels the Republican obstructionism and makes statements like this one from Jim DeMint all that more frustratingly close to reality:

Last week, Sen. Jim DeMint (R) of South Carolina, arguably the chamber's most right-wing member, told an audience at the National Press Club that the United States is currently "about where Germany was before World War II." Everything about his remarks -- the sense of history, the understanding of current events, the philosophy -- was a special kind of stupid.

But DeMint seems quite pleased with himself, and keeps churning out new and creative insanity.

In an interview with the evangelical World Magazine titled "The Taxpayers' Greatest Ally," Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) had some interesting things to say about his work with his colleagues in the Senate:

"I am not going to be able to persuade my colleagues to do the right things, so I am just going to have to create pain."

Okay, that is a bit intense. However, it may not even be the most intense statement from Sen. DeMint this week. On a conference call this morning, DeMint discussed health care reform: ""This health care issue Is D-Day for freedom in America... If we're able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

If you look back historically, you can draw a direct line from the defeat the Clinton suffered in '93 trying to push for Universal Health Care to his far less ambitious actions as President and the capitalization of the hobbled presidency by the GOP and their uprising with the Contract For America. It is critical that we not give the GOP an inch on that and we're certainly not going to be helped by Senators like Nelson who has a personal interest in helping the insurance industry.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1033)

PLAYS: (2760)

Ben Nelson has done so much damage in such a short time. Remember what he did to the stimulus package?

The Liberal blogosphere has been bashing Ben Nelson over his statements against not backing a public option for health care.

Sen. Ben Nelson is being targeted in a mailing and Internet ad campaign asking people to withhold their political contributions to him and other members of Congress.The campaign takes issue with the Nebraska Democrat's opposition to President Barack Obama's proposed public health-insurance option. That option would create a government insurance plan to compete with private plans...read on

He's taken a boatload of cash from the health care industry so when he said this, it didn't come as a shock to me. Nicole Bell wrote this story last month: Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) Opposes Public Health Plan. His pockets are lined with gold from the Health care industry

Nelson plans on gathering together some like-minded sell-outs Democrats to oppose any public health plan. Go to Open Secrets to find out who has donated money to Nelson last few years for his re-election and whaddya know? Blue Cross/Blue Shield is in the top 5 with $31K. In fact, Nelson received more than $230,000 from the healthcare industry in the last four years. Actually, HCAN lists more than $600,000 from the insurance industry to Nelson.

Now he's changing his tune a little bit, but don't let this fool you.

Nelson, according to three 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 word I'm hearing is that the health care industry is going to back the public option and then Nelson and Co. will make it so bad that nobody would ever want it.

Howie Klein met Donna Edwards last week at an event I was supposed to go to, but couldn't make and he writes:

One of the House's most outspoken and well-reasoned advocates of universal health care-- sidetracked by the puppets of the Medical Industrial Complex to a chance for a "public option"-- Donna is worried that Big Insurance will embrace the "public option." Embrace and then smother to death in a bear hug. They don't want the competition, so they have given their well-paid allies-- Republicans, Blue Dogs, members of the Evan Bayh anti-Obama Bloc of Senate Conservadems-- their orders: let it pass and then make it dysfunctional. They will gamble everything that their three highest paid shills-- Arlen Specter (R/D-PA- $4,026,933), Max Baucus (D-MT- $2,833,731) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY- $2,758,468)-- will be able to sabotage the public option sufficiently enough to ensure that it is not robust and not competitive.

That looks to be their strategy. Change Congress has a petition up and writes:

Ben Nelson said he may not support Obama’s plan. Is this why?
Nelson raised more than $2 million from insurance and health care interests in his three campaigns for federal office, 83% from out-of-state. -- Public Campaign analysis

We need to keep holding his feet to the fire so please sign on, but keep both our eyes on how Congress handles the "Public Option."

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (796)

PLAYS: (1094)

Ben Nelson on Fox News Sunday reserved his right to filibuster Obama's Supreme Court nominee. Nelson used the Republican talking point about "activist judges" to justify his stance....over...and over...and over again.

Nelson: Let me just say it this way. I don't care if they're liberal or conservative. I just want to make sure they're not activists. I don't want an activist on the bench. When I was Governor I appointed almost 81, over 81 judges, an entire Nebraska Supreme Court, two Chief Justices, the entire Court of Appeals. And that was my, I had no litmus test but I did have a test and that was did I believe they were going to apply the law or were they going to be an activist and try to engineer the law.

Quite honestly I think we want to read law. We don't want to have to read judges' minds, so I think that's the test -- will they be an activist or not? And I would hope that there wouldn't be any circumstances that would be so extreme with any of the president's nominees that the other side would feel the need to filibuster or that I might feel the need to filibuster in a case of extraordinary circumstances. That's what the Gang of 14 was all about.

With Democrats like these ... who needs Republicans? As TPM notes:

But Nelson's predictable posturing makes it such that, even with Al Franken's vote, the Democrats will need to find at least one Republican willing to cross the aisle vote for cloture on most of Obama's major initiatives. And that's a species of Republican that's becoming more and more rare every week.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1197)

PLAYS: (737)

Will Rogers famously said that he wasn't a part of an organized group, he was a Democrat. Sadly, when it comes to Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), that's even more true. I understand that Nelson is a conservative Democrat and comes from a historically conservative state, but there's no excuse for his abject stupidity in discussing Guantanamo and how to deal with the detainees there.

What's so odd about Nelson's NIMBY attitude is that he himself points out the flaws in his logic: we have and are successfully housing some really dangerous men (including both foreign and domestic terrorists, like Moussaoui and Eric Rudolph) in prisons on American soil without incident. Nelson just doesn't want them here.

Well, Sen. Nelson, I'd prefer that we have a country that wasn't full of criminals and people who wish us harm too. But unfortunately, that isn't reality. I live within 30 miles of San Quentin prison and Bay Area residents (for as liberal and hippy as our reputation is) do not seem to be all that concerned about our collective safety. The fear that these people will be on American soil so that we deal with them as befitting our justice system forgets that they will also be under heavy lock and guard as well.

And then in another annoyingly wrong nod to bipartisanship, Nelson lends credit to the Republican meme of Jack Bauer/the-ends-justify-the-means issue of keeping American safe is somehow the moral equivalent of respecting the rule of law:

WALLACE: Senator Nelson, who’s right about the balance between, on the one hand, keeping the country safe and, on the other hand, living up to our values?

NELSON: Well, they probably both are in some -- to one degree or another. I don’t think anybody wants to see this country attacked again. And I think it’s also a question about whether or not it is held against us because these tactics have been used.

But look, the president, when he was running, said that we’re going to stop waterboarding. John McCain has said it’s torture. I think what we have to do is understand that this decision apparently was decided last -- last November.

But 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.

Oh holy FSM. I'm so tired of this dishonesty. NOTHING of value came from torture, and to suggest that it might is accepting the Republican framing of this issue. Nelson should be ashamed of his ignorance. If we had to torture three people over 30 days more than 200 times looking for some way to connect Iraq to 9/11 (unsuccessfully, too), then how can anyone with the least bit of common sense much less intelligence think that it kept us safe? Does Nelson actually think that the 108 detainees killed via "enhanced interrogation techniques" have actually deterred terrorism?

Think about it, Sen. Nelson, before you spout off on television again, hurting your party and the President's stance: If your son, brother, cousin or friend (even if he had jihadist tendencies--something we have not yet proven) was killed in the name of the American "War on Terror", would you be inclined to be sympathetic to the American cause, or would you too seek revenge for the US's dehumanizing treatment?

Continue reading »

From Headzup The Week in Cartoons.

It looks like Arlen Specter is coming to terms with the cold reality that he can't be a "Democrat" and stand in opposition to working families. As usual, the Republican-like Ben Nelson does as much damage as he can to good progressive legislation like EFCA.

“Card Check” deal is a “fool’s errand”Sen Ben Nelson, D-NE, told me he does not see a deal happening this year at all. He sees no way to put a compromise together that’s pallatable. “You take away the arbitration issue, and you still have the ‘card check’, so that doesn’t work. You take away the ‘card check’ and you still have the arbitration problem. And if both go away, you’re left with nothing. It’s a fool’s errand to do this. I just don’t see an agreement happening,” Nelson said.

Way to go, Ben! That's acting like a good FOX News Democrat. But as soon as this report comes out, there's news of a compromise in the works with Specter being part of the solution.

Feinstein, Specter Compromises Pave the Way For Passage of Employee Free Choice Act

New compromise measures from Dianne Feinstein and Arlen Specter may pave the way for the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

As Harkin says, the Feinstein compromise has the advantage of "protecting the secret ballot, so people can do it in private," which neutralizes that particular right-wing criticism of the bill.

The other bone of contention has been arbitration clause of the Employee Free Choice Act. Specter himself supports "last best offer" arbitration. It's also called "baseball arbitration," and has incentives to get both parties to quickly make their best, most reasonable offer. Bill Samuel of the AFL-CIO says "we're open to that."...read on

I'm tired of hearing excuses and I'm tired of Democrats like Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh that block real change in America.

John Amato:

I posted on this already, but Nicole has found out that Ben Nelson takes a boat load of cash from the health care industry.

HuffPo:

Nelson's problem, he told CQ, is that the public plan would be too attractive and would hurt the private insurance plans. "At the end of the day, the public plan wins the game," Nelson said. Including a public option in a health plan, he said, was a "deal breaker."

Are you kidding me? Screw the American citizens and what's best for them...let's be worried about the poor for-profit healthcare companies? So much for that vaunted filibuster-proof majority. Nelson plans on gathering together some like-minded sell-outs Democrats to oppose any public health plan. Go to Open Secrets to find out who has donated money to Nelson last few years for his re-election and whaddya know? Blue Cross/Blue Shield is in the top 5 with $31K. In fact, Nelson received more than $230,000 from the healthcare industry in the last four years. Actually, HCAN lists more than $600,000 from the insurance industry to Nelson.

And so, Nelson has decided to bow to the wishes of his campaign contributors, instead of standing up for what 73% of the American public want: A choice of a public health insurance option.

In his opposition, Nelson can't even muster the courage to be honest about his motives. Instead, he parrots the latest right-wing talking point, that a public health insurance option will somehow undermine the employer-based health care system.

This point, of course, is ludicrous. How exactly would this undermining happen? Every person in America will be offered a choice. If they choose the public health insurance option, how exactly is anything being forced upon them? And if businesses choose the public health insurance option, again, how is that not a choice?

If you're of a mind to let Sen. Nelson know that his job is to represent the people of the United States, not the insurance companies, you can send him an email here. The phone numbers for his various offices are available here. Remember, you get further being polite.

Sen. Ben Nelson does what he does best, he doesn't stand with his own and now is saying that he's against public health care because it's too good.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said Friday that he will oppose legislation that would give people the option of a public health insurance plan. The move puts him on the opposite side of two-thirds of Americans.

A poll released this week by Consumer Reports National Research Center showed that 66 percent of Americans back the creation of a public health plan that would compete with private plans. Nelson, in comments made to CQ, joins the 16 percent of poll respondents who said they oppose the plan.

Nelson's problem, he told CQ, is that the public plan would be too attractive and would hurt the private insurance plans. "At the end of the day, the public plan wins the game," Nelson said. Including a public option in a health plan, he said, was a "deal breaker."

A Nelson spokesman didn't return a call for comment.

As he so often does, Nelson said, according to CQ, that he planned to form a "coalition of like-minded centrists opposed to the creation of a public plan, as a counterweight to Democrats pushing for it."

That coalition will not include 16 Democratic senators who signed a letter calling for a public plan earlier this week, including Senate leaders Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Charles Schumer (N.Y.).

If Democrats use the reconciliation process to pass health care reform, however, Nelson's vote would not be needed, as only a simple majority could pass the legislation.

Please, not another coalition of the lame. He just thumbed his nose at the president and at the American people. Is this the best Nebraska has to offer? Hey Ben, you will be hearing from us.

On policy, I've been very impressed that President Obama is ditching the bi-partisan nonsense that was doomed to fail. The republican party is in shambles right now and are hoping that Obama and America fails. That's their game plan I think anyway. Health care is going to be a knock down drag out fight and this might be the best use of the reconciliation process. Ronald Reagan used it a number of times so it's not some arcane rule that hasn't been used since the 1800's.

DOWNLOAD (15)

PLAY (82)

Rachel Maddow talks to Ben Nelson about the cuts he and his "bipartisan group" made to the stimulus bill and Nelson uses No Child Left Behind and special education mandates not being funded as an excuse to not give additional funds to education as was wanted in the House bill. Rachel calls him out for the compromises he's made making the bill less stimulative but Nelson refuses to acknowledge that during the interview.

As Think Progress has noted, Nelson's compromise means 12 to 15 percent fewer jobs than the House bill.

DOWNLOAD (36)

PLAY (87)

So Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, one of the bluer of the old Bush Dogs, is helping enable Republican obstructionism in the Senate:

According to Fox News, Nelson convened a meeting in his Senate office today with Senate Republicans and some Democrats who are seeking “common ground on how they can improve the $819 billion economic stimulus bill.” Nelson’s meeting included Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA).

Here's what he told Fox:

NELSON: I don’t know, I don’t even know how many Democrats will vote for it as it stands today because a lot of my colleagues are not decided. They’re undecided on the bill as it is right now. Fortunately, we don’t have to take the vote on it right now. We have an opportunity to make some improvements.

He later came on Andrea Mitchell's program at MSNBC, in the clip above, and tried to explain further:

Nelson: So what we have to do is what the president just said in the last clip, is we have to create jobs. And if you take a look at the stimulus package, there are those programs that are there for infrastructure, that are there to develop construction, that will create jobs, and those have a robust nature to them in creating jobs. Unfortunately, there are other parts to the program that are borderline, marginal, when it comes to job creation. There's no question that there's a lot of spending in the bill, but what we really need to do is focus on what it does for jobs.

According to the Washington Post, two programs in particular are the object of Nelson's displeasure:

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who remains undecided about the bill, said he opposes money going to research projects at the National Institutes of Health and about $13 billion for Pell grants that help students pay for college. Nelson says the measures are worthy but do not belong in legislation designed to stimulate the economy.

But as Red Rogue at DailyKos notes:

Earlier today, President Obama released state by state job improvement numbers should the Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Program be implemented. According to the figures, Nebraska would see an employment boom of 19,220 jobs or a -1.3% drop in the unemployment rate.

Those numbers alone make the program worthy of support.

I'd love to put something in this diary telling you to "Call Senator Nelson and demand he vote for the bill!" but it wouldn't have any effect. Honestly I think Nelson is toeing that line yet again in order to shore up support amongst conservatives in Nebraska. It's no different than earlier this week when Nelson voted "yea" on a killer amendment on the SCHIP bill -- it's all for show because last night Nelson voted for SCHIP.

Indeed, Digby has already observed that this really is just so much posturing:

This may be kabuki. McCaskill is a super Obama friend and may be playing a role on his behalf to help him gain a handful of Republican votes so they can call it bipartisan. (Let's hope they don't give away the store to do it...) But, the end result is the same, whether Obama is part of it or not. Conservative values and economic shibboleths will have been validated and going forward we will have to re-fight the battle from square one.

Even Nelson seems to acknowledge as much to Mitchell:

Nelson: There are people who think we have a choice here. I'm not sure we have a choice. But I do think there are choices within this package that we can make.

Unfortunately, Nelson's way of making that point is all about enabling Conservative talking points -- which they will then use to explain their ideological obstructionism. Nice job, Senator.