Just for the record, all the lawyers around here shook their fists at me when I complained about how much of this is done in the legal system. You call it “procedural maneuvering”, but the rest of the world calls it “lawyering”.
Incidentally now that Obama has ruled out pushing the bill through the Senate before Brown gets there a smart move would be to insist that he is seated as soon as possible like Ted Kennedy was when he first won. It will make Obama look good before whatever legislative arm-twisting is required to pass health care which will be either through the House or through Snowe.
From that same link
Republicans had recently taken over Congress and had 230 seats in the House and 52 in the Senate. Democrats were in a state of shock and we watched (because that was essentially all we could do) in horror as they systematically went after nearly every institution of civil governance
I think this is probably a GQ question, but how can the Republicans having 230 seats in the House and 52 in the Senate mean that they can steamroll their agenda over the Democrats, while the Democrats today having 256 seats in the House and 59 in the Senate means that they can’t pass shit?
Aren’t the same rules and procedures still in place? Aren’t both sides aware of the rules and procedures?
This sort of speculation is circular.
I don’t know what she specifically got. But she supported the bill in the Baucus form and not in the later form. Compare and contrast.
FWIW, in the link helpfully supplied by RTFirefly, she outlined (some of?) her issues with the revised bill.
But again, you need to compare the versions of the bill to see what the differences were.
Could have sworn I addressed this earlier. It wasn’t worth their while. In legislating, as in many other areas of life, you need to make your choices and set your priorities. How much is having a bipartisan deal worth to you versus having a deal that you feel is better for the country (and by happy coincidence, yourself and your party)?
As it happens, there are many many liberals who are very unhappy with the deal that was struck with Nelson and Lieberman, to the point that they will apparently not vote for the bill in this form, and that’s with the Senate at the minimum of 60 votes in favor. In light of that, to wonder “why the hell” the Democrats wouldn’t revise the bill to be even less to their liking in the interest of getting some unnecessary Republican support seems ludicrous.
She doesn’t say when these meetings were. I noted that she was involved early on. And “been in countless meetings” is not the same thing as having meaningful input, as I can tell you from involvement in countless meetings myself. Here’s what the NYT says:
Which is what I said.
The difference is that the Democrats are cowards who won’t use the filibuster.
See my prior posts.
The real answer to your question is that it depends on what your agenda is and how much support you can attract from the other side, and how much you are willing to bend in order to do so.
If you know that you only have 230 seats in the House and 52 in the Senate, you know that you need to attract some support from moderates in the other party, and don’t go about putting a stake in the ground over legislation that can’t win without this support. From the perspective of a mainstream Democrat (i.e. a liberal), a coalition of Republicans and moderate Democrats passing center/right legislation amounts to the Republicans steamrolling “their agenda”, but a conservative Republican might differ.
What’s different now is that the Democrats have an even bigger majority, so their sights are set much higher. A radical restructuring of the entire healthcare system is not something that you set your sights on when you have tenuous control of the government - it’s what you do when you have “supermajorities”. And it’s that level of support that they are having a hard time getting.
From that perspective, they are being stymied by the Republicans, but it’s only because their ambitions are at that elevated level to begin with.
Because the Republicans have balls. Say what you will about Bush and Cheney, but those guys knew how to fight and fight dirty.
The Democrats OTOH consistently set themselves up to get slapped around. As I mentioned in another thread, they’ll get kicked in the balls and then say, ‘Thank you sir, may I have another?’
Don’t say that. The prospect of a Palin presidency scares me enough.
(And now, as my thoughts are drifting toward the possibility of a Palin/Brown ticket being victorious in 2012, I find myself gasping in terror and my clothes drenched in cold sweat.)
Why does it even make a difference whether the Senate waits or not? Even now before he’s seated, Brown has already effectively scuttled any chances of the Senate doing anything further on this bill. When Brown gets seated, the Senate will be 59-41 Democrat-Republican, which is less than 60%, so the Republicans can filibuster the bill. Before Brown gets seated, the Senate is 59-40 Democrat-Republican, which is still less than 60%, so the Republicans can still filibuster it. The critical event here was not actually Brown winning the election, but Coakley losing it.
That makes perfect sense.
Which appears to be what happened. And is what was suggested by influential Democratic leaders last night, for heaven’s sake.
Nonetheless, I think I’d maintain that the concept of continuing debate and voting prior to seating is firmly ingrained in the congressional landscape. Otherwise there would never be lame duck sessions and voting. Tradition would, instead, indicate that the two month period following an election be ‘down time’ or ‘home state time’ in which members would tour their districts and press the flesh.
No room whatsoever for the possibility that the Dems do, in fact, have the weaker ideas?
Yes. The President of the United States has announced that there won’t be debate until Brown is seated.
Depends, I guess. Is screaming “NO! NO! NO!” qualify as an “idea”?
Look, I can see a favorable argument for seating Brown as soon as practicable, because that was the will of the people, and honoring the will of the people is what the whole ball game is about.
But why is it legitimate to thwart the Obama agenda by maximum obstruction? Obama ran on his agenda, it was approved by the people rather loudly. The judge of who’s ideas are weaker is the people, and they made that judgement, and the agenda that judgement demands is being systematically thwarted.
If that’s anyone’s idea of honoring the will of the people, they can keep it.
But the craven hypocrisy of the Forces of Darkness has no direct bearing on the issue. He was elected, and should be seated without any technical delay.
Well, it worked for them in 2008, didn’t it? 
None. The Republicans are blatantly incompetent, factually wrong, and evil.
And I doubt it’s going to work. How many people who voted for the Democrats last time are going to stay home in the future, after the Democrats have repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to do anything? An unwillingness to even speak firmly, much less pass laws. I hear quite a bit of “I might as well have voted for a Republican” coming from the left.
The Republicans have to have actual ideas before anyone can call Democrat ideas weaker.
Democrat’s idea = Let’s make the following changes to the health care system
Republican’s idea = Let’s not
The Democrat’s idea is weaker.
Which of the two propositions was approved by the people? Even after civic minded corporations spent a hundred million educating the people about the horrors of socialized medicine. After all the shrieking and hair tearing about “death panels”, the advocates of which position were elected?
Does the wisdom and will of the Republican Party outweisgh the judgement of the election? By what divine mandate are they so empowered?. If it isn’t our decision, by what arrogance is it theirs?