01-21-2010, 12:11 AM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
|
01-21-2010, 01:14 AM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/7...for-healthcare What was it you were saying about paying attention? Keep up, Texie. It is a fast-paced world out there. |
|
01-21-2010, 01:28 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
I think we may be talking about the same thing, but I'm not sure. I'm trying to be as clear as I can here ... try making a good-faith effort to understand even if my word choice doesn't meet lawyerly standards, just for once, eh? Here's the process I was referring to: House passes current Senate bill in its entirety, no changes. Senate subsequently passes a new (2nd) bill via reconciliation to amend the 1st bill, and appease House Dems who object to the 1st. House then passes 2nd bill. That's what I called the "pass it in the House first, then amend it with reconciliation" or "we'll fix it later" approach. Perhaps using the word "later" is misleading because it implies a lot of time. Either way, I don't think that option is going to fly. It will look so nakedly partisan, I don't think nervous Dems are going to go along with it. I guarantee you the American public won't. It's tantamount to outright cheating. Can you honestly flip the R's and the D's and not say you'd feel the same way in reverse?
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
|
01-21-2010, 02:35 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Senate already passed its bill. Senate then passes reconciliation bill (with 51 votes). That bill incorporates changes agreed to between House and Senate. House then passes reconciliation bill (so there is no threat they get jilted). House then passes Senate bill. Both go to the President. President first signs Senate bill, then seconds later signs reconciliation bill. There is nothing "cheating" about the process. Republicans certainly weren't shy about using reconciliation in the past (including for the Bush tax cuts, as you may recall), and it is no more "nakedly partisan" than filibustering every single thing presented by Democrats in the Senatee (what happened to the party who fought for an "up or down vote?"). |
|
01-21-2010, 02:48 PM | #25 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
As I said previously, I don't hear anyone suggesting the course that you just described. And I think it would be political suicide. Do you not see how nakedly partisan that would look? I do believe Obama/Pelosi are that suicidal, especially because neither one of them has a re-election to worry about (Pelosi's not in trouble). But I'll be damned if they can get a majority of skittish House Democrats (or maybe even Senators) to commit suicide with them. Quote:
You're distracting from the issue. What the R's did is not going to be relevant to how the public views this particular instance. Polling shows the public hates the health care bill and sent a message via Scott Brown that they want it stopped. They're not going to bend over cheerfully just because you think the R's might've abused reconciliation in the past (which, by the way, is up for debate). As for the "up or down vote", you know as well as I do that argument was limited to judicial appointees. Legislation can be carved up, rewritten, and compromised on. An individual cannot. Total red herring.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young Last edited by Tex; 01-21-2010 at 02:59 PM. |
||
01-21-2010, 03:35 PM | #26 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
There is nothing "nakedly partisan" about passing health care. Don't forget, the public elected 60 Democratic votes to the US Senate, 258 votes to the House, and elected a Democrat as president for a reason- one of which was to pass health care. There have been a total of 3 congressional elections since the Democrats' resounding victory in 2008- Dems went 2-1 in those elections. If you add in gubernatorial elections to the mix, they have gone 2-3. The public has demanded healthcare reform for a long time and continues to do so. The Dems have the power to do it. They ought to, and I expect they will. The fact that Republicans are nothing more than pure obstructionists now doesn't mean Democrats can't use the process to circumvent Republican obstructionism. Republicans are using the process to shut the government down, Democrats can use the process to get it moving again. Quote:
Quote:
Republicans have also complained about no "up or down vote" in multiple instances involving bills (rather than judicial nominees). Your claim is simply not true. A quick google search reveals the following (some of the links in the blog below don't work, but you can do a google search for Frist's quotes and find those very quickly too): http://www.ourrepublicblog.com/2006/...eatens-to.html |
|||
01-21-2010, 05:15 PM | #27 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
It's not about whether the public wants health care (they say they do), but whether they want this version. Take a look at this Daily Kos chart: Citing a bunch of irrelevant non-nationalized races is just watering down the evidence. Voters sent a pretty clear message in NJ/VA and the Dems didn't listen, so they sent a stronger one in MA. It appears some of them are sitting up and taking notice, even if you (and the Dem leadership) isn't. And of course it's nakedly partisan. Or would you care to name a single non-Democrat who's going to vote for this mess? And yes, I'm using the term "cheating" in the sense of how it would be perceived. Quote:
Quote:
If the Dems end up using your model to pass health care (2 bills at the exact same time), I'll change my avatar to a pro-Obama picture of your choice for a week.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
|||
01-21-2010, 07:25 PM | #28 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
01-21-2010, 08:32 PM | #29 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
Quote:
I think those are easy cases to make. If you'd like to make a case that some of those other races you mentioned were also nationalized, feel free to try. To me, partisan essentially means "breaks on party lines." It doesn't matter if it's R's or D's, if only one party votes for it, it's partisan. Generally it's pejorative, but it doesn't have to be. In this case, I think it definitely is.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
||
01-21-2010, 08:45 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Of course, you also had Specter switch parties based on his feedback in PA. Abandoning health care would be a collosal mistake, particularly if it is based on what people incorrectly think was being sent as a message. Which is why they won't abandon it. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|