Bricker, should the GOP-controlled House have declined to vote on impeaching Clinton until the new House was seated, or was it proper to go ahead with it in a lame-duck session?
Their failure to offer much in the way clear explanation during the previous 10 months is notable, puzzling, and no small contributor to the current state of things. It comes across as: “When you have the votes, you don’t need to trouble yourself with convincing the people that your legislation is sound.”
This strategy of “ram it down their throats first, explain it later” has obvious drawbacks.
I think the problem many House members are going to have with the Senate bill is all the special perks put in there for certain states. If you’re a Democrat, and not a recipient of any of that pork, and you’re in a marginal district, you’re going to be very vulnerable in the next election if you rubber stamp the Senate bill.
I don’t know how the numbers add up for that proposition, but it wouldn’t surprise me if that erases the majority vote the House had originally. Guess we’ll see shortly.
I don’t think anyone is arguing about the universality of Webb’s opinions, only that they do make sense in the current context.
If the politicians are genuinely wanting to pass a bill America wants, it doesn’t make sense to try and pass it before it would have otherwise passed just to avoid letting Senator-elect Brown having a say.
I’ve seen some political analysts (Dick Morris et al) assert that the narrow House passage of their bill was an illusion, in that the leadership let many members “off the hook” because they didn’t need them. This way those members could avoid difficult votes while also strengthening the House hand vs. the Senate version. But if needed there are reserves to fall back on.
His “say” is the same as his party’s say: A simple No.
Brown’s election was a gift to Democrats. It gives them the opportunity to step back from long term legislation that is being rushed through the system. This was reflected in the statement made by Senator Webb.
If the current health care bill was voted in today it would not go into effect until after the next election. This gives people the opportunity to flip both houses and nullify it. The legislators know this and the opportunity to throw them under a bus has just been severely limited.
Well the concern is that passing health care may hurt them at the polls. If this is the case they will have an opportunity to defend the bill and show voters it’s not the boogy-man that opponents are making it out. This will be much easier to do if there is a cut-and-dry bill that has been passed.
In any case the Democrats already ran on health care reform and won. They don’t need to twist and turn with every opinion poll and special election. They need to push through what they promised then let voters judge.
In any event the opposition to health care reform in the polls is exaggerated. Most polls don’t distinguish between where the opposition is coming from. One poll that did this showed that only 39% of the public opposed the bill for being too liberal; 42% supported it and 13% wanted a more liberal bill. I think it’s highly unlikely the last group will vote against the Democrats for passing a bill even though they may have hoped for more.
The idea that the Republicans are being obstructionist is a subjective and highly dubious one, IMHO. If one side is willing to bend and the other not, you can accuse obstructionism. But if one side says “let’s all come together and support my priorities and go againt your core values”, the other side is not “refusing to work together” if they decline.
The deal here is that the Democrats have the votes - or close to it - on their own that they don’t see enough value in bipartisanship to make significant concessions in order to attract Republican support. As such, they didn’t make such concessions and attracted no support.
If they were willing to bend even a bit they could have had Snowe’s vote, for example. But it’s not worth it. So the pretense that the Republicans are being obstructionist are hollow.
[I remember a Dave Barry column complaining about women, which ended off something like “… so in the spirit of peace and harmony, I’d like to have men and women come together and reach a common ground and agreement … about just how stubborn, pigheaded etc. etc. women are …”]
The Repubs would have to get a 2/3 majority to overcome the Obama veto. Could never happen (& in the Senate it’s technically impossible.)
Oh. That explains the “death panel” stuff, then.
Can you give us an example of what sort of concession would attract Republican support?
Okay, let’s make it even smaller-scale. What sort of concession would have attracted Snowe’s vote?
Don’t feel bad if you can’t come up with anything. Nobody else has, either.
The Democrats are more than willing to bend, as the total lack of the public option makes clear. As for the dubious claim of obstructionism, well, Inhofe is the Republican poster child for this:
I also recall Republicans running away from work to give an impromptu press conference on the Senate steps once after they lost in 2006. It was complete with an impromptu podium and microphone and an impromptu audience. Something is dubious, but it isn’t the claim that Republicans are obstructionists.
As for why, just ask Jim DeMint (R-SC): “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”
The Democrats spent months courting Snowe and got nothing out of it. It’s not even clear why she opposes the current Senate bill; her main concern was the public option and that no longer remains. If Baucus hadn’t wasted time trying to court Republicans, health care could have passed last year and we wouldn’t even be having this debate. The idea that this bill has been rushed through is absurd; there are few bills in US history which have been debated for so long.
She supported the Baucus bill. So that’s a concrete example right there.
Once Baucus got his bill out of committee with her support, she was shut out of subsequent negotiations, as Reid fashioned a bill combined of various Senate committee bills.
And all the more so, when the House & Senate leaders got together. That was a purely internal Democratic affair.
Was it that, or did she cave to pressure from McConnell? What concession did she get, earning her vote, that was later taken away, costing that vote? And why the hell would the Dems have done that?
Or are you just trying some retconning?
There have been plenty of efforts by the Dems to involve Republicans. Obama called in the GOP leadership and said, “I’m willing to put medical tort reform on the table. What concessions would you make to get that?” They never replied. Max Baucus had his “Gang of Six” with Snowe, Grassley, and Enzi on the GOP side negotiating for months to no avail. If the Dems were intent on ramming things through, they would have skipped that very frustrating detour altogether. And even in December, the White House and Reid were in regular communication with Snowe and Collins, trying to find out what it would take to get them to support a bill. Snowe has never voiced any specific objections to the Senate bill, just that for some reason we should take more time.
See above.
Please be specific on what concession would have won Snowe’s vote, according to the Senator or her office.
Olympia Snowe says you’re wrong: on Face the Nation, Dec. 20, 2009, she said:
“I have been in countless meetings and telephone calls and meetings with the president and a number of people across the aisle.”
=/= shut out.
Oh, c’mon. Both houses of Congress are quite used to a bit of pork here and there being used to get the votes to pass something.
None of these guys are legislative virgins.
What I meant was that it gives their Republican opponents a great campaign issue in their next election. And I’m talking about those Dems in normally right-leaning districts. There were a lot of those in the last 2 elections.
Al Franken is a very pertinent example here.
And Ted Kennedy. Am I wrong or did Republicans refuse the courtesy of off-setting votes when he was too sick to attend, yet shriek “Foul Play” when there was talk of his resigning (and when a Demo would have won that by-election)?
And, despite that Bush ran as a “Uniter”, didn’t the Republicans threaten to revoke the filibuster rule if Democrats didn’t allow him to choose the foulest right-wing judge he could think of that “only” 50 Senators would oppose?
Does anyone doubt that the Cheneyists would use any trick they could think of to pass their agenda?
The Democrats just had their only super-majority since 1978, and what do they have to show for it? A health-care bill that might have been written by the health-care industry!
Rumble thy bellyful! Spit, fire! spout, rain!
And I’m a centrist. 
… I pity liberals for the pain they must be in.