CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


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

(D) Joe Neguse*


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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 29, 2011 12:11 AM UTC

Senate Vows Quick Defeat of Boehner Plan--Reid Plan Next?

  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE #2: House Republicans postpone a vote on the debt ceiling. From MSNBC:

Earlier in the day, in a closed-door GOP meeting, Boehner, R-Ohio, made headway in securing the 217 votes necessary to pass his plan. No Democrats were expected to support it. Boehner told the Republicans he expected to round up enough votes but was not there yet.

“But today is the day,” he said, according to people in the room.

Today is Thursday, and is not “the day,” apparently. Maybe Friday is “the day.”


UPDATE: Politico reporting that the vote in the House on John Boehner’s plan has been delayed–but “will still be held Thursday evening.” Trouble getting those votes in line?


CBS News updates on the next debt-ceiling chess moves:

The Republican-led House will vote on Boehner’s plan in the late afternoon. It’s unclear whether the speaker will have enough support in his caucus to pass the measure, which would increase the U.S. borrowing limit by up to $900 billion while cutting more than $900 billion in spending over the next decade.

With one Democrat out for health reasons today, Boehner needs 216 votes to pass his bill and can afford to lose 24 Democrats. In the early afternoon, CBS News tallied at least 17 Republicans who will vote against it and nine who are leaning against it. Fifty were undecided.

If the bill does pass, Reid said today he would take it to the Senate floor for a vote immediately — where the Democratic majority will reject it…

The Senate Democratic caucus sent a letter to House Republicans Wednesday night informing them that all 51 Senate Democrats and two Democratic-voting independents are prepared to vote against the plan. Reid has put forward his own plan, which could cut around $2 trillion in debt and raise the debt ceiling at least through the end of 2012, but it’s unclear if or when the Senate will vote…

Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet of Colorado are both reportedly willing to pass the “Reid Plan”–as we’ve discussed, a deficit reduction deal that sacrifices a Democratic goal of additional revenue in exchange for sparing Social Security and Medicare. Both would rather be voting on something closer to the goals of the Bowles/Simpson deficit reduction commission, or the related “Gang of Six” plan that includes both cuts and increased revenue. Or something even better aligned with Democratic goals of protecting social programs and raising revenue to reduce the deficit with less harm–but that’s not the hand they’re likely to be dealt at this point.

With the clock ticking, it’s quickly going to come down to the least imperfect solution; and Reid’s plan may emerge as the most politically defensible way forward left to either side.


42 thoughts on “Senate Vows Quick Defeat of Boehner Plan–Reid Plan Next?

  1. The Senate had better start thinking about its intransigence. It’s going to have serious consequences if they’re not careful.

    Whoever is left standing when the music stops…

        1. 40 years of easy one line bills increasing the debt limit. Why now is this such a big deal?

          What is the difference this time around, with this President?

          I really hope that the US is better than that but I can’t get over the coincidence of it all.

            1. The Dems in 2006 didn’t say we refuse to do this bill unless they raise taxes to pay for it, and some of them voted for cloture.

              Both of which are not currently happening with this President. It am not saying it IS the color of his skin, I am saying it is an interesting coincidence.

                1. All of the sudden the Rep. who have been spending like drunken sailors their entire career, and voted several times to raise the debt ceiling all the sudden see the light.

                  I am not saying it is completely about racism, but as Holmes says “Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.”

                  I also said I hope I am wrong, just can’t come up with a better reason.

                  1. To just throw racism around like that.  It’s complete garbage.  Was the shutdown in ’95 related to racial issues?

                    Of course not.  The only ones injecting race into this debate are the Dems, and it shows how little of an argument they have that they have to resort to it.  It’s disgusting.

                    Clyburn actually compared the debt-ceiling vote to the Emancipation Proclamation today.

                    1. chicken sheeted GOP cannot dare to offend the Tea Nuts.  

                      Destroy the economy in order to save it.  Where have we heard that before?

                    2. and a bit of an e-trail, showing–in my (undoubtedly warped and liberal) mind–that indeed folks who identify as conservative and Republican also consider/analyze/reference race, often in way that is not, ummm, helpful to your Big Tent proselytizing.  

                      Five kinds of Liberals

                      The Post-modern Liberal movement is mainly based upon identity politics and the cult of the victim. The first four of the five categories are based on the “entitlement” of the “victim.” The five categories are:

                      1) Blacks, based upon the imagined entitlement of the victim of racism who is bitter about past racial injustices; 2) Women, based upon the imagined entitlement of the “victim” of “patriarchy;” 3) The poor, based upon the imagined entitlement of the “victim” of “social injustice;” 4) Homosexuals, based upon the imagined entitlement of the “victim” of “homophobia;” and 5) New Age Progressives.


                      There is the ‘scholarly analysis’

                      This liberal narrative suggests that the Founding Fathers had the opportunity to outlaw slavery and simply chose not to do so because they didn’t see blacks as fully human. Nothing could have been farther from the truth. While a majority may have been skeptical of suggestions of equality between races…

                      A majority thought so and yet ‘nothing is further from the truth’?  That’s some interesting work there.  (I would think the minority position in interpreting historical opinion would be ‘further’ from the ‘norm’ (or ‘truth’ in this usage)…but then I am not feeling vulnerable due to the large [crunchy, delicious snack] faction within my ranks…

                      At the end of the day, the liberal notion that the 3/5 Compromise was a mistake is simply wrong. Outlawing slavery or counting slaves as whole persons was never an option.


                      Meanwhile, there certainly is a lot of explainin’ going on, over on that side of the aisle:

                      I have no issues with minorities.  I think the fact that we have a minority president is good in a certain sense. Don’t take that too far though… He stands for so much that I find totally appalling and completely ridiculous. I wish he never had become president and that’s simply because of his views and nothing to do with his race.


                      Hey, some of my best friends are conservative.  Or at least people I interact with politely on a fairly regular basis.  So please don’t write me off as a liberal hack–totally UNFAIR!

                    3. Atwater on the Southern Strategy

                      As a member of the Reagan administration in 1981, Atwater gave an anonymous interview to political scientist Alexander P. Lamis. Part of this interview was printed in Lamis’ book The Two-Party South, then reprinted in Southern Politics in the 1990s with Atwater’s name revealed. Bob Herbert reported on the interview in the 6 October 2005 edition of the New York Times. Atwater talked about the GOP’s Southern Strategy and Ronald Reagan’s version of it:

                      Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964 and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

                      Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

                      Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, “N….., n….., n……” By 1968 you can’t say “n….” – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me – because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N…., n…..”

                      In a February 1991 article for Life magazine, Atwater wrote:

                      My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood. The ’80s were about acquiring – acquiring wealth, power, prestige. I know. I acquired more wealth, power, and prestige than most. But you can acquire all you want and still feel empty. What power wouldn’t I trade for a little more time with my family? What price wouldn’t I pay for an evening with friends?

                      This article was notable for an apology to Michael Dukakis for the ‘naked cruelty’ of the 1988 presidential election campaign.


                      “I was wrong to follow the meanness of Conservatism. I should have been trying to help people instead of take advantage of them. I don’t hate anyone anymore.

                    4. Everybody, including you, knows that racism has been a strong component of the out of proportion Tea Party freak out reaction from the beginning, complete with insisting he’s an alien, Kenyan born, card carrying Mau Mau Muslim who roots for the terrorists, hates white people, British colonialism (never got why hating that was a bad thing for an American) and America. Oh, and oddly, he’s also just like Hitler.  Enjoy your float down that river in Egypt but don’t expect to have a lot of us for company.  

                    5. I don’t know that, and I believe you’re making it up to justify your position and explain away the righteous, non-racist anger directed at the President.  

                    6. Have you been living in a cave while all the racist bull has been trotted out, one  thing after another.  Am I making up the relentless attempt to prove Obama is foreign?  What other President ever had to produce two birth certificates?

                      It wasn’t an ignorant lunatic who was pushing the whole Kenya, Mau Mau anti-colonial thing.  It was Newt, supposedly a serious conservative, at least according to  most conservatives who go on about how brilliant he is.  

                      Did I imagine all those racist  e-mail “jokes” Republican elected and party officials started circulating as soon as Obama won the nomination?  And why so much  out of proportion righteous anger for a garden variety centrist Dem?  Why the ridiculous effort to paint him as a dangerous radical, as Hitler, as Stalin, as a hater of whites?  

                      Sorry, elbee, you are absolutely irrational on this subject and must be running around with your hands over your ears singing lalalalala all day long to be denying what couldn’t possibly be more obvious. Bullshit right back at ya.  

                    1. They can call me what they want. I am trying to find an answer to so much hatred and disrespect. I don’t remember it during the last Presidency but maybe my ideological blinders were on so I didn’t see it.

                      When some one gets so heated for merely suggesting the possibility, that tends to mean I have found something. “where there is smoke…”

                      I have to stop with all the cliches.

                    2. …to call people racist with no cause. You can kiss my squirrel. You are not a victim.  

                    3. I have given you opportunity after opportunity to prove me wrong. To tell me why my instinct is wrong. I have said from the beginning I hope I am wrong, but nothing else is making sense.

                      If you have a better explanation I am all ears (eyes in this occasion), if you don’t than be quiet and go away.

                    4. elbee is no racist and that’s why he has such an irrational take on this. I believe he  just can’t stand to admit to himself the truth about the political company he keeps. There is not a shred of doubt about the role racism has played from the get go. As much as conservatives hated Clinton it was never like this.  

                    5. That does not make him a racist.

                      He supported Obama for President.  He’s as disappointed as many of us over what that brought, although perhaps for different reasons.

                    6. And I agree his beliefs are sincere.  But  a lot of his fellow travelers on the right are blatant racists and he doesn’t like to face that.  

                    7. What I’m saying is that elbee’s irrational insistence that we’re just making it all up and that there is no racism involved or that it’s just a very few and not reflective of any significant portion of the Fox and Limbaugh crowd is because he doesn’t want to see it. It would make him too uncomfortable to admit that it’s there and it’s very real, it’s been very real ever since the southern strategy and Obama’s election sent it into overdrive.  

  2. that Boehner’s going to have the votes to pass is bill in the House. Even if it passes, it won’t get by the Senate. Reid’s won’t get by the House. Everybody pretty much agrees on all that.

    So it seems like it will be time for Obama to say, OK boys and girls.  You couldn’t get it done. Time for me to do my duty and use my constitutional power to guarantee the full faith and credit of the United States of America all by myself.  Consider the ceiling raised.  Now go to work on something that will, number one, stimulate job creation and, number 2, get a handle on the debt and deficit.

    1. Just moments before the boll was to be called for a vote, Boehner postponed the vote because his head count was short od the 217 votes he needs to pass his bill.  The House will “debate” post offices for the next three hours.  Senate may not have time to consider the bill tonight.

  3. Is there a point at which Boehner will allow a vote on the debt ceiling that is supported by a majority of the Republican caucus rather than 217 plus?  That is the question I have.  If Boehner won’t put up a bill that a majority in the House can support, I don’t think anything will happen but default.

    1. Redstate reports that the bill has gone back in to the Rules Committee for alteration, with one rumor that the change will be to make the second debt ceiling increase contingent on passage of the balanced budget amendment, which, as the McCain article points out, is pure fantasy.

    1. once they got them on their home turf in DC.  They always managed to use and control the moral majority crowd and probably figured this would be the same. Could be as big a strategic error as the invasion of Iraq.

  4. The Boehner Plan died in the Senate in something of a record timeframe, getting tabled 59-41 in just over 2 hours (including the time it took to have the clerk port it over from the House floor and present it to the Senate).

    The Reid plan, unmodified, is apparently up for a vote tomorrow in the House (no, not the Senate – the House) so that House Republicans can theoretically vote “no”.  Wouldn’t it be a blast if 30 Republicans decided that it was good enough, and the Democrats went along with it?  That would be, um, funny.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

86 readers online now


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