Reply With Quote
smash-mouth the Repugs back like they smash-mouthed under dubya.
IBIWISI
An idea that seemed toxic only weeks ago — using a parliamentary tactic to ram health reform through the Senate — is gaining acceptance among moderate Democrats who have resisted the strategy but now say GOP opposition may force their hands.
The implications of the subtle shift among this small group of centrist senators could mean the difference between success and failure for health care reform — giving Democrats a potential road map for passing a bill that had been left for dead after the Massachusetts Senate defeat.
That mood in the Senate was matched Tuesday by a growing momentum for President Barack Obama’s health care proposal in the House, where Democrats were beginning to coalesce around the view that passing a flawed bill is better than passing none at all.
These shifts couldn’t come at a better time for Obama ahead of Thursday’s health care summit. The White House has signaled he’s prepared to use reconciliation, which would require just 51 votes to pass health reform.
The comments also seemed to reflect the early soundings of a Democratic strategy for selling the public on the tactic, especially if no Republicans sign on to Obama’s plan after the summit: The GOP made us do it.
“Obviously, if the minority is just frustrating the process, that argues for taking steps to get the public’s business done,” said Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who was one of the leading voices against the procedure after the Massachusetts election, calling it “very ill-advised.”
“At the same time ... Republicans would probably shut the place down, but you could argue they are doing that anyway,” Bayh said.
Bayh’s remarks Tuesday came a day after Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) cited Republican obstructionism as a reason why she could embrace the parliamentary maneuver to pass health care reform. Last month, she said she was leaning against reconciliation.
“I’m staying open to see how these negotiations go forward,” Landrieu said. “I’ve not generally been a big supporter, but the Republican Party, the leadership, has really been very, very, very disingenuous in this process.”
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said he doesn’t prefer reconciliation, but it may be the only way.
“I’d like to see as many votes as possible,” he said. “But at the end of the day, with the obstructionism going on at the level that it is, I’m more interested in what’s in the package than I am in the process of how many votes it takes to get it through.”
To be sure, the hints on reconciliation do not signal any kind of ironclad commitment. Democrats remain hesitant about using the procedure, fearful that Republicans will be successful in convincing voters that it is an end-run around the normal legislative process.
It also remains unclear whether Democrats can even pull it off, given the strict rules governing bills passed through reconciliation, which requires the entire legislation — down to a single line — to have an direct impact on the federal budget. Simple policy changes, such as the president’s new proposal to establish a federal review board on insurance rates, are unlikely to survive.
Although he has remained open to the idea, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota fired another warning shot Tuesday about the limits of reconciliation, saying a narrow bill might pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian, but not a measure nearly as broad as the proposal put forth by Obama.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz0gPsovMja
smash-mouth the Repugs back like they smash-mouthed under dubya.
IBIWISI
All about crazy made up revenge with this one. Nice take. Surprising.
LOL, their logic is that because the Republicans wouldn't sign on to a ty bill that is going to do nothing to bring down costs and degrade the quality of service everyone gets, they're going with the nuclear option?
They deserve to get their asses handed to them in November.
This is a smart move by Dems. Repugs aren't going to sign anything because it would interfere with their obstructionist strategy.
Was it a nuclear option when the Republican majority used it to enact tax cuts?
I don't necessarily agree with its use, but "nuclear"?
Yeah, genius move!
I'm pretty sure they will go with the reconciliation. I'm wondering if they can get the house to vote their way when they do. 60-70 percent of the peeps don't want this crap but they keep going forward. Way to bring the folks together.
Last edited by jack sommerset; 02-23-2010 at 10:14 PM.
Double post.....
Magic Negro blew it. He should have put in a strong public option, then reconciliation. And the Dems would clobber the Repugs in November
reconciliation on the public option and let congress sort the details................ 'em.
Figures, WC likes his side to play tough, but when there's push back, he whines about "crazy made up revenge". What a jerkoff.
Pretty much. Reconciliation to pass the piece of they almost had at Christmas will be disastrous though.
If they're going this route might aswell have the public option and everything else in there...
No it's better that they use reconciliation to pass something that nobody likes. I support this move by the Dems.
He wanted to give them (republicans) a chance at bipartisanship, but he should have known they wanted no such thing.
He won't, even with a lower bar, and they won't.
Already ruled out...
...reading the tea leaves, right? The bill is already ty enough. No need to press their luck...
...pissing backwards on all the dumb s who thought they voted for social democracy, not crony capitalism and a continuation of Bush's foreign policy and homeland security regime...
They will piss backwards on the voters...it's a time honored tradition in both parties.
Instead of real reform, we'll just get a ty insurance mandate.
Good. The country needs it and I would rather have it through a procedural gray-area in the Senate than have it filibustered or another expansion of Executive power. I was proud that Debbie Stabenow signed it. We need this, especially with a Health-Care mandate. Heath insurance is not like choosing an insurer for your car.
Guess who said it.Why try it now -- for the first time in history -- to eliminate extended debate? Well, because they control every lever of the Federal Government. That is the very reason why we have the filibuster rule. So when one party, when one interest controls all levers of Government, one man or one woman can stand on the floor of the Senate and resist, if need be, the passions of the moment. ... At its core, the filibuster is not about stopping a nominee or a bill, it is about compromise and moderation. That is why the Founders put unlimited debate in. When you have to -- and I have never conducted a filibuster -- but if I did, the purpose would be that you have to deal with me as one Senator. It does not mean I get my way. It means you may have to compromise. You may have to see my side of the argument. That is what it is about, engendering compromise and moderation.
Ladies and gentlemen, the nuclear option extinguishes the power of Independents and moderates in this Senate. That is it. They are done. Moderates are important only if you need to get 60 votes to satisfy cloture. They are much less important if you need only 50 votes.
... I do not want to hear about "fair play" from my friends. Under our rules, you are required to get 2/3 of the votes to change the rules.
... It is the one thing this country stands for: Not tilting the playing field on the side of those who control and own the field. I say to my friends on the (other) side: You may own the field right now, but you won't own it forever. I pray God when (our party) takes back control, we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.
"Under our rules, you are required to get 2/3 of the votes to change the rules."
There's no need to change the rules. The dubya/ head Repugs used reconciliation several times, no change in rules was needed.
Fine, care to take a stab as to who made the statement?
Pelosi?
At least someone guessed.
There's actually more good quotes than that:
Watch for yourself.
That does sound like Biden...! Dang it
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
