Anyone wanna lay down some quatloos as to whether or not the House will pass the Senate's version of CrapCare As-Is?? :D

Pelosi doesn't have the votes and is unlikely to get them.

I lay down 1000 quatloos that CrapCare will not pass the House As-Is..

Michale.....

It's not evidence-based decision making.

It's decision-based evidence making.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/06/16/junk-science-week-terence-corcoran-decision-based-evidence-making.aspx

Michale.....

Yep, it was. The holding was that the first amendment didn't allow for damages to be awarded to public figures for hurt feelings. Such people must be:

intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large

Don't see the families of fallen soldiers as qualifying under that.

If this case were only about Phelps' right to say dumbass things in public, then I suppose the appeals court made the right decision. But when I look at how the Phelps family tried to turn the Snyder family's funeral into a dog-and-pony show which really had nothing to do with that fallen soldier's life or death, I hope the fool gets pounded flat.

I wonder if Phelps is planning to argue that the suit Jerry Falwell lost against Larry Flynt will apply. When Flynt's magazine published an obnoxious cartoon about him, Falwell took him all the way to the Supreme Court, which threw his case out saying that his hurt feelings didn't trump the First Amendment. But I think this was contingent on the fact that Falwell was a public figure and should expect to be the target of satire--even stupid, adolescent satire. The Snyders were a totally innocent target, and should not be expected to put up with this.

Oh, yeah, one more thing. Just because Fred Phelps has a right to scratch his itches in public the media are under no obligation to enable him to display it.

As for Cap and Trade, I've been a Global Warming sceptic for a long time, if for no other reason than the insistence that "the debate was over". Thankfully Prof. Jones recently admitted (having been forced to) that this simply isn't true.

Science requires healthy scepticism. AGW cannot be considered legitimate until healthy scepticism is not only allowed, but encouraged. Until then, it's bunkum.
At best the science is ambiguous and unclear, at worst it's a policy-driven con.

And that, in a nutshell, is why I love this blog. That may be the first time I have read a self-confessed lefty Democrat come out and give McCain credit. Which is made all the more surprising when one considers that McCain is considered by many right-wing Republicans to be a RINO.

Personally I've always admired McCain's general political position as he seems a man who's always voted on what he believes in rather than the party line. I may not always agree with him, but that doesn't stop me respecting the man.

Apologies if that sounds disrespectful of the dead, but I call 'em as I see 'em..

Michale.....

The science behind it is, at best, a joke and, at worst a con/fraud..

But you are dead on ballz accurate.. The US Senate can't pass any "side car" legislation without the main legislation being signed into law first.

Hence, the reason why CrapCare will die.

House Democrats do not trust Senate Democrats. And Senate Democrats will have no reason to pass any sidecar legislation, once the House approves CrapCare..

God, I love politics!! :D

Michale.....

With healthcare the Senate bill deals with the substantive aspects of healthcare reform, and if the House passes it and it's signed by Obama, it's validly passed law. Reconciliation can then be used to pass a sidecar bill that relates solely to aspects that impact on the federal budget; no policy amendments are allowed.

'END' OF THE 'END GAME' OR 'THE END'?

November 23: The Health Care Endgame (NPR)

How many "end games" must Dems have before they realize that CrapCare is simply NOT a good idea??

Michale.....

Simply because the House has to pass the Senate Bill AS IS before the Senate can even take up the reconciliation "trick"...

Pelosi doesn't have the votes, nor is she likely to get them by the White House imposed deadline.

If the House misses the Easter deadline, that will be all she wrote.

The fat lady will have sung.

Elvis will have left the building.

Michale.....

In general, the best way to expose bigots like that is to let them talk. It's better to let these idiots say what they say, because they actually show just how screwed up, batshit insane and utterly stupid they are.

It reminds of a similar issue over the BNP leader appearing on the BBC's Question Time show. Griffin actually gained support as a result, because the show was clearly stacked against him. He looked like a martyr, which gave a racist party more credibility.

a small caged-in public area to protest to his heart's content

Does America have places like Speaker's Corner? (It's not caged...but still...)

It was a bad decision

It was arguably one of the worst decisions in SCOTUS history. If those pamphlets weren't covered by the First Amendment then nothing is. The founders intended that the people have a right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances". Schenck was petitioning the people rather than the Government, but to quote Lincoln, Government is meant to be "government of the people, by the people". It was a massive injustice.

Back to Phelps, I wholeheartedly respect soldiers. Whenever I'm aware that someone has served, or has had a close family member serve, I make it a point to thank them for the sacrifices they've made for me and my family. American troops too (while I'm on the subject, thanks Scott. I really do appreciate you guys doing things I admit I'm nowhere near brave enough to do myself. You do your country, and her allies, proud).

Yet if people want to say hateful things about them, they have the right to do so, and it's those very rights that those brave men and women fight to uphold. If I understand Scott's point (I apologise if I misunderstood) that's it; they fight for freedom, including free speech.

Having said all that, however, I still believe that limits can be set on Phelps' conduct, without undermining the constitution. All rights under the constitution are given equal importance; where two or more conflicting rights are involved, the courts weigh them up.

If the right to privacy exists (I've contended it doesn't, but the SCOTUS has long said it does, so that's the law) and covers things like the right to contraception or an abortion, it sure as hell has to cover the right for a peaceful funeral. That's how bans on protests near funeral sites, such as the RFAFH Act, I think, are constitutional.

Germany's laws on Nazi symbols, for instance).

German laws on Nazi symbols are in large part due to wanting to atone for a dark period in their history, and one I think some Germans still feel guilt over. I once had an Austrian lecturer at University whose office overlooked a Jewish cemetery, and we noticed, my Jewish friend and I, that she was overwhelmingly lenient to him in class!

Yes, I know Austria isn't Germany, but the same logic applies (Hitler was Austrian after all).

Abortion clinics have such protections against protest. Even voting sites have a buffer zone around them, inside which no political speech is allowed.

I think both of those back up my earlier point that when you're balancing two rights you can restrict free speech. In the first it's the right to abortion (covered by the same right to privacy I'd argue extends to funerals), in the second I'd say it's probably to do with the implicit (but not explicit) right to fair elections.

But having said all of that, the case before the Supreme Court isn't really about Phelps' right to his speech. It's about whether someone can sue him for damages.

I believe they can, and there's long established law saying that just because you have the right to say something, doesn't mean you're free from all responsibility for your words. As with all rights, with rights come responsibilities, and one of those is to pay for damage you cause through exercise of your legal rights.

Michale: Well said, and that precisely is why I'm an agnostic. I've got no problem with people who are religious, but I think organised religion has a history of breeding hate of one's fellow man. It's not just Islam; the Crusades, pogroms, the many Inquisitions...

Doing that, however, compromises both national security, contract law, individual privacy and justice to name just a few of the unintended consequences.

So courts are forced to carve out "exceptions" which undermine the rule of law.

I think there's a way to rationalise those exceptions that I don't think means that the rule of law has been undermined. Not only is every single right subject to limitations (the right to bear arms doesn't allow one to shoot people without just cause, for example), but every right must be balanced against other rights.

National security is designed to protect the right to life. Freedom of contract is covered by Lochner v New York, privacy by several cases, most notably Griswold v Connecticut, and I'd say that "due process" covers exceptions in the interests of justice.

That though we'd prefer written laws that are the same for everyone and everyone understands it simply is not possible to write laws that cover every situation and are fair and just.

You're spot on. Even though I do think that this is where we rely on courts, on judges providing a "human judgement" to ensure the law is fair and just (by interpreting it, taking into account all circumstances), I also agree with you that blindly trusting the courts is a bad idea.

The second amendment is intended to provide for a means for "the people" to fight against unjust laws and tyranny, even by (especially by?) the courts.

But "the law" while informing our decisions is not and never has been unconditionally binding.

The founders themselves were revolutionaries who fought the law because they believed the law to be unjust. Why would they give birth to a country which didn't allow its citizens the same right? The short answer is, they didn't.

Our inability to write perfect omniscient laws is not a reason to abandon law but a reason to employ judges—and to make judgments not blindly follow the law (which we never do but refuse to admit.

Despite possible appearances to the contrary, I'm not a "follow the law blindly" kind of guy. I have always believed in questioning authority, political, legal or otherwise.

persecute others, and disrupt their religious practices.

I hadn't thought of the funeral as a religious practice, but you're right. That only serves to weaken Phelps' case further; the same first amendment he seeks to rely on protects the free exercise of religion too. The right to free exercise was clearly of equal importance to the founders as the right to free speech.

The ability of people to "interpret" "white" to mean "black" is why we have both laws and judges, and can fully rely on neither.

The problem with law is that words are always open to interpretation. George Bernard Shaw once famously said:

England and America are two countries separated by a common language.

You say "fanny" referring to your backside and to me it means a lady's genitals. I say the word "bum" to mean my derriere, but to you that's "homeless guy". If I said "I'm going outside to smoke a fag", you might think I'm going to go electrocute a gay guy ;-) .

The intent was to protect political speech vital to a functioning democracy but since political speech can encompass nearly any topic the only way to protect it is to protect all speech. Doing that, however, compromises both national security, contract law, individual privacy and justice to name just a few of the unintended consequences.

So courts are forced to carve out "exceptions" which undermine the rule of law. Since the whole point of having the constitution is to limit the scope and power of the federal government its useless if the federal government can simply ignore it whenever it gets in the way of governmental objectives—but that's precisely what we've always done because the actual literal law is absurd.

State secrets must be kept, confidentiality agreements enforced, threats of violence and treason must be prosecuted, those disrupting the speech of others must be restrained... And yet by the letter of the law under the first amendment these very necessary and vital functions are illegal.

I've said before that I'm not a strict textualist and the first amendment is one reason. I support it. I believe in it. There's no better way to word it and it absolutely needs to be the law. But, if the objective of free speech is to be achieved then speech must be regulated, abuses curtailed and, if necessary, punished. All of which are in violation of the first amendment. I simply believe we have judges in recognition of the fact that on occasion human judgments are required.

That though we'd prefer written laws that are the same for everyone and everyone understands it simply is not possible to write laws that cover every situation and are fair and just. That even though we recognize that power corrupts and government cannot be trusted we still prefer to pretend the law protects us, it doesn't. The only way to safeguard democracy and freedom is through vigilance and, when necessary, action. there is no easier way.

The founders established the beginnings of a justice system which we've allowed to deteriorate into a quasi-legal system. Our judges, our legislators all hide behind "the law." But "the law" while informing our decisions is not and never has been unconditionally binding. The constitution is not a suicide pact. Our inability to write perfect omniscient laws is not a reason to abandon law but a reason to employ judges—and to make judgments not blindly follow the law (which we never do but refuse to admit.)

Phelps abuses free speech to assault others, slander others, persecute others, and disrupt their religious practices. To protect Phelps on first amendment grounds doesn't strengthen the bill of rights it weakens it. It doesn't prevent government regulation and suppression of speech it imposes it.

The appeals court sees nothing wrong with judges summarily convicting and incarcerating belligerents for "contempt of court" when they disrupt court proceedings but its unconstitutional to prevent disruption of a funeral? So the first amendment doesn't prevent the government from regulating speech which offends the government, it protects abusive persecutors from their victims seeking justice as it was clearly intended?!

The ability of people to "interpret" "white" to mean "black" is why we have both laws and judges, and can fully rely on neither.

"I can't trust a man who uses the word 'evil'
eighteen times in 10 minutes. If you're half evil, nothing soothes you more than to think the person opposed to you is totally evil."
(Norman Mailer)

"Every man thinks God is on his side. The rich and powerful know he is." (Jean Anouilh)

Your remark reminded me, most, however, of:

"Good People do not need laws to tell them how to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the law."
(Plato)
thanks, Michale

You can find justification for any deed, no matter how heinous or despicable in the texts and tenets of all organized religions...

Seems to me that, if there is a god and if he/she/it is how people make he/she/it out to be, he/she/it wouldn't "hate" anyone.

Michale....

Fantastic article. As an active duty service member, I am sickened when I see Phelps and his group thrill in the death of service member and his grieving family. But any disdain I feel for what they do or say is tempered by the importance of their protection under the first ammendment. When Phelps is gone from this earth, and his "church" has long since disbanded, the constitution will remain. That's what we really need to protect. Thanks again.

Respectfully,

IT1(SW) Scott W. Knapper

He was in the same league as Thomas Paine who knew that "Common Sense" meant the "sense of the Commmons" where ALL ideas could be freely thrown at the Prime Minister in raucous debate . . out of which the wisest decisions would be those made by governing bodies that had had to consider all options, not just those of one . . .or two. . . parties in power ... (and unlike our governing Houses where virtually no one has to worry about being re-elected).

Just as the opposite of capitalism is not so much socialistic dictatorship as oligopolies where power and wealth (profits) are concentrated in an elite few, so the danger to free speech is not so much a noisy, malicious (even evil) Fred Phelps, but well-intentioned tinkering and elaborating our rules so that no one can speak freely, without having to [double]think whether some rule or other is being violated and there's a risk to be weighed every day in every thing everyone says.

Orwell understood that the way to kill free speech was to drape it in burdensome regulations smother it in bureaucratic legal enforcement and permeating every town, every funeral, every meeting
with people looking over their shoulders to see if "someone" was watching them.

Having said which, I have to admit I admire the candor & subtlety of Chris' last paragraph. The distinction there does have a pragmatic appeal.

-- Hawkowl

Democrats are frantic to try and find something as earth-shattering and meaningful as a Republican winning in the bluest of blue states...

Sadly, Grayson winning a Republican district in Florida isn't even on the same planet. :D

Michale.....

Looks like there is more to this story than another Dem critter in a scandal..

Eric Massa: Democrats ousted me over health care

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34051.html

Heh, sorry, got a little carried away there.

Not at all..

With apologies to David (re: what he said in a previous commentary) this (and politics in genera;) *IS* a Right vs Left issue..

It would be nice if it wasn't but it is.

Somewhere out there, there is a Right-Wing version of CW, posting the same kinds of (mostly) logical and rational political commentaries.

Each faction has their good points and bad points..

That is why being an independent is so much fun. I can point to the good points and ridicule the bad points.. :D

Michale.....

Michale.....

Such a poll is utterly pointless but Democrats are desperate for good news.

Secondly, there were 13 Republicans to one Democrat. The hardline GOP vote was split. According to my maths 14.5% stated a preference for a specific GOP candidate. On top of this, the undecided vote (57.7%) is likely to be undecided amongst Republican candidates.

Thirdly, in the current climate voters are voting for candidates rather than parties, adopting a "wait and see" approach. This only increases the importance of name recognition. It's precisely for that reason that I won't say that all of the undecided voters would vote Republican, though I think the assumption that most would remains valid.

The new candidate in the race is a lot more acceptable to Progressives, and seems to have a decent chance in the primary, from all accounts.

He has a fractionally better chance to win the general election than Lincoln (unless Hendren is the GOP candidate. Halter polls worse against Hendren than Lincoln). It's still about 70% likely that Arkansas is changing hands, though.

Reid may be the MIDOTW in your eyes, but I'd say that many people blame Reid for the delay more than Bunning. On both sides of the aisle people are claiming that Reid was playing politics too. Daily Kos, for example, blamed Reid for not pulling an all-nighter. They hammered Bunning too, but you'd expect nothing less from a hardline left-wing blog.

Then there are those who criticise him for not discussing the issue sooner. Everyone knew full well when the benefits were going to run out, why leave it so late? One can only conclude that Reid wanted to stifle debate by forcing the issue through so close that any Senator who objected could be vilified, as Bunning was. It was Reid who scrapped the bipartisan jobs bill which included an extension of benefits, and then proceeded to create another bill without them.

So Reid tried to appear fiscally responsible to Nevada voters whilst berating Bunning for actually being fiscally responsible. After his jobs bill, Reid moved onto a tourism bill. This bill's main beneficiary was Nevada.

Meanwhile others have blamed Reid for not even considering using unspent Stimulus money to fund it. Bunning asked to use Stimulus money, Reid said no, Bunning asked for debate. This shows the Democrats up as the real "Party of No", insisting on their way or the high way. Just as they have done on healthcare reform.

It was Reid who blocked unemployment benefits, not Bunning, and it was Bunning who climbed down from his ideological high horse to help the unemployed. Reid could have forced cloture, so that the benefits were extended by Wednesday, but didn't. He could have kept the Senate in session over the weekend, so they could have been extended by Monday. He didn't. Where exactly is Reid's "win" here?

Bunning was insisting that Democrats honour the PayGo commitments that they made, that Obama signed into law. The unspent stimulus money has already been approved. Far from Bunning providing a good case study for Republican obstructionism, I'd argue Republicans should use this as an example of Democrats failing to keep their promises. Here's a quote from the man himself to make the point:

“If we can’t find $10 billion dollars to pay for something that all 100 senators support, we will never pay for anything.” (emphasis added)

Besides, whilst it would be a politically unpopular argument to make, extending benefits keeps people unemployed longer. Before the stimulus the median duration of unemployment was around 10 weeks. Half of those who were part of the jobless figures one month were employed again within three months.

Since the stimulus extended unemployment benefits, the median duration of unemployment reached 18.7 weeks, nearly double. Worse yet, since it now takes closer to five months to find work, people take jobs for which they're overqualified and underemployment goes up.

The very fact that we're even pointing this out is a mess for the Democrats, because it feeds into the "we can't govern" image of Democrats that Republicans are sharpening up for the fall campaign.

I always said this was going to be where the real battle would be fought.

Stupak's award will be known as the "Joe Lieberman Of The House" award for his actions on the health reform bill.

I'd actually like to give birth to a "Most Impressive Republican Of The Week" award and give it to Stupak. ;-)

raising his middle finger to an ABC news team

And that, in a nutshell, is why Bunning screwed up framing the issue. His attitude and demeanour did no favours to what I still believe to be a damn strong case.

finally strong-armed Bunning into capitulation. The whole thing, politically, was a win for Democrats (and Harry Reid) and a loss for Republicans (and Bunning).

I'm not sure it was a win for the Democrats. Reid looked weak, he could have forced it through, but instead it took Republicans to be strong to get things done. It was a clear win for the Republicans, who once again showed that the Democrats can't govern, and that only Republicans have the backbone to run the country.

Democrats need to use Bunning as the poster child for Republican obstructionism, pretty much every chance they can get.

Except a) he backed down (thanks to the Republicans, not Democrats) and b) he offered constructive criticism and an alternative solution. He did nothing more than hold Democrats to their own promises. That's not obstructionism, it's opposition, and that's precisely what the loyal opposition are supposed to do.

"Jim Bunning proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Republicans truly are the 'Party of No' when he singlehandedly held up a bill that provided much-needed relief for thousands of unemployed Americans merely to score a political point.

Except many people recognise it was Reid who stopped the bill (by not using all the tools at his disposal) to try and score a political point with this "Party of No" rubbish.

Republicans consistently put politics above actual governing, and this is just the most recent example. Voters in November will be faced with the 'Party of No' versus the 'Party of Let's Get Something Done For America.'

Reid was the one putting politics above governing. The Democrats are the "Party of Let's Try And Get Something Done But Not Even Be Able To Get Our Own Party To Vote For Our Bills" when it comes to healthcare. ;-)

Judging from what they put in the actual document, the Founders would be appalled at the idea that every major bill should need the votes of three-fifths of the Senate to pass.

I'd say the same would apply to judicial appointments, yet Democrats had no problem requiring every single judicial nominee to receive the votes of three-fifth of the Senate. As we said last week, plenty of hypocrisy to go around here.

The underlying "principle" here seems to be that it's fine to pass tax cuts for the wealthy on narrow votes but an outrage to use reconciliation to help middle-income and poor people get health insurance.

That, I have to concede, is a damn fine point. There's little difference substantively in what the Democrats are ostensibly using reconciliation for (to lower the costs of the Senate bill) and the Bush's tax cuts (intended to stimulate further growth in the economy).

So the Republicans can either vote with us to remove these deals, or they can vote for the Cornhusker Kickback to stay in the bill. They can't have it both ways.

That'd be true if the sidecar only takes out the special interest deals, but should it include other things, like a public option, then that framing won't work. The Republicans will simply say that the Democrats are trying to push through their original agenda by masking it under the guise of getting rid of special interests.

Of course if a public option is passed and happens to be cheaper (because it has no need to turn a profit), estimates suggest that 70% of employer-based plans are likely to switch to the public option. Meaning employees happy with their old plan couldn't keep it, as a result (albeit indirect) of the healthcare reforms as proposed.

I understand that there isn't a public option in the current senate bill, but it is clearly one of the issues Democrats want to use reconciliation for, so it's worth asking if the President is publicly declaring his opposition to the public option. I somehow doubt that, which renders his statement at best misleading, and at worst an outright lie.

Ironically enough, it's an example of the same sort of demagoguery and political gamesmanship that he himself criticises later in his speech. Once a hypocrite...

(Remember what he said about majority rule in 2005?)

Secondly, the idea that exchanges are necessary to provide the same choice over healthcare insurance as members of Congress get is bogus. Open up the interstate trade of insurance and you end up with precisely the same thing; larger risk pools. That's why exchanges work at all. More customers = a larger risk pool. So basically Democrats have chosen a complex and expensive route rather than a cheaper and much simpler one to achieve the same goal. That's government waste.

Thirdly, the fee on insurance companies, due to the increased profits they'll get under the mandates, means it's a stealth tax. You pay your mandatory insurance premium, they then pay the government a higher level of tax. That's stealth tax.

Essentially you're paying higher taxes under the guise of paying your premiums.

As for whether the proposal is paid for, that all depends on how much of the House bills end up making it through reconciliation. The Senate bill will reduce the deficit, but the two House bills combined will actually increase it. That's from the CBO's figures, and Obama himself positions them as the independent fact-checkers.

Obama's right that taxpayers currently end up subsidising the uninsured. However the mandate, especially with the tax credits, achieves the same result by different means. The mandate would force the uninsured to buy insurance, but if they couldn't afford it, they'll get tax credits funded by...other taxpayers.

As for requiring everyone to have coverage to make the system work, that's patently untrue. I've proposed, ad nauseum, a sensible scheme where a mandate would not be required. The only people benefiting out of a mandate are the government (due to their new stealth tax) and the insurance companies (due to whatever increased profit is left after the new tax, assuming the fee is less than 100%), not patients.

He's also right that another year of negotiations wouldn't help. What was refreshing about his speech was that there wasn't a single mention of the word "bipartisan". Hallelujah! That might be the first example of that in a year, and about time too.

It always has been. One party claims to look after the working class, the other the middle class, but both actually cater to the upper class, because they're the people who bankroll their election campaigns. They talk a good game to win votes, but that's all.

This is also why I enjoy discussing this so much with you, Moderate, Chris, and others on this blog.

The reason I enjoy it is because everyone seems to understand the reality of politics. We know how "the game" is played and are able to separate discussion of the issues from the politics. We then engage in honest, mutually respectful, discussion, with an eye on both the issues and the "game" of politics surrounding them.

Moderate argues quite often from the standpoint of the middle class with an eye towards we can't neglect the lower class.

Well I'm middle class, but my parents started off as working class. My father left school at 14 and my mother at 16. They started with nothing and worked hard to climb the social ladder. So I feel I'm a good example of what upward mobility is all about.

What gets me isn't the existence of the class system, but the way that the classes have become immutable. It's becoming a closed shop; the people who've climbed the ladder are stopping others from doing the same. Society functions best when it's meritocratic.

This class issue is also oddly enough at the core of both the union and the Tea Party argument.

Well the unions represent the working class, the Tea Party is a middle class group, and both are saying they're fed up of the upper class running things to suit themselves.

But the very wealthy are going to fight tooth and nail to hold onto their piece of the pie and even to expand it.

I do sense a small amount of change here, thankfully, with the likes of Buffet and Gates talking a lot about the wealthy paying their fair share. Talk is cheap, though, and it'll be interesting to see what action actually takes place when their money is on the line.

The trouble is that the way wealth is currently divided is not characteristic of a healthy economy. There is too much at the top. We had a healthier economy when there was more in the middle and even at the bottom.

Wealth is always better when it "trickles" up. The working class need enough money to employ the middle class professionals (accountants, doctors, lawyers etc), who in turn need to be sufficiently comfortable to buy the luxury goods that those below them just can't afford. Meanwhile the working class makes the goods, and at the end of it all, the upper class should skim off their profits. That's how a functional economy should work.

Those at the top are not paying their fair share into the system.

Precisely. The supremely wealthy need to be taxed effectively. What I would propose is rather than increase the rate of tax (because the people who we would want to pay the top rate are clever enough to divert their funds so as to avoid paying the highest rate of tax), levy a surtax on top of the wealthy that has no exceptions or loopholes to it.

Michale......

A Republican... :D

And what do you call a Republican with a heart???

don't know, never saw one... ;p

p.s. This is also why I enjoy discussing this so much with you, Moderate, Chris, and others on this blog. Well ... that and the humor, that is.

Because I often hear this message at the core. Moderate argues quite often from the standpoint of the middle class with an eye towards we can't neglect the lower class. And though I haven't heard you directly say this, Michale, I think you're in favor of a growing middle class as well. It's a key cornerstone of a healthy economy. This class issue is also oddly enough at the core of both the union and the Tea Party argument.

But the very wealthy are going to fight tooth and nail to hold onto their piece of the pie and even to expand it. And they often win because they have a lot of resources at their disposal.

The trouble is that the way wealth is currently divided is not characteristic of a healthy economy. There is too much at the top. We had a healthier economy when there was more in the middle and even at the bottom.

Those at the top are not paying their fair share into the system. They're able to use their resources to avoid responsibility and pay less percentage wise than the rest of us. It's why folks like Warren Buffett are saying that it's crazy that he pays less, percentage wise, than his secretary.

I'm sorry you feel that everything is "right" vs. "left," Michale. I've always argued that this is a false dichotomy that perpetuates the status quo.

The real story here is one of class - upper, middle, and lower class. The upper has never owned more, the lower less, and the middle is disappearing.

So I'm in favor of anyone who understands this issue, is willing to talk about it, and wants to fight to help reverse the trend - whether they be Democrat or Republican.

The trouble is that both sides talk about this, in different ways mind, when they are up for re-election. Then, when they get into office, it seems to go by the wayside. A bit of a broad generalization here, but this, I think, puts the finger on why the public is in general so frustrated w/ Washington.

Cheers, Michale, and hope happy hour is sometime soon for you!
-David

You mean like those that support CrapCare?? :D

No matter what example ya come up with, David... I can always point to the Left just as easy as you can point to the right??

You were dead on ballz accurate before when you said that, to really get things done in a fair and honest way, we need common people like us setting things up. :D

Michale.....

It is interesting how the right is taking the tactics of 60s radicals, radicals that they supposedly despise, and using them to support their corporate agenda.

I think this is a good thing for progressives since the right did such a good job de-legitimizing these tactics that they now appear to be the fringe.

-David

They both know all the right things to say and, to be perfectly fair, they likely have the best of intentions going in.

But when it comes to actually putting those words into action, they fall flat.

My oldest has seemed to come around, though. He works on a fishing boat in Alaska and seems to have found his niche in life. :D

But President Obama is still being plagued by grand ideas and supreme eloquence coupled with the complete innate and inane ability to actually get things done.

It's now being reported that the Obama administration is going to reverse itself (AGAIN) and try 9/11 suspects in military tribunals. While it's the right things to do, it should have been done right at the outset...

What do you call a Democrat with a backbone??

A Republican... :D

Michale....

You mean like Joe Wilson?? :D

Michale.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/grayson-leading-in-republ_n_486090.html

Now they obviously don't like him because he's compromising w/ conservatives ... could it be because he states what he believes in?

To be fair, it was akadjian who came up with the moniker of "CrapCare"..

I was perfectly happy with DunselCare... :D

But we are in 100% agreement.. President Obama and Democrats need to come clean with the American people and give us something that HELPs *US*, not their corporate sponsors..

Michale.....

Couldn't agree more. Amazing that they've managed to paint themselves into this corner.

Appreciate your comments because it helps confirm my suspicion that a stronger approach might resonate better with independents. Pass the agenda and then be judged in November. Quit trying to please everyone.

I'd say it's a bad bill, but there I think even you agree with me, albeit possibly with very different reasons.

Yup. Getting back to this current healthcare proposal, it would not bother me one bit if it sank.

And I actually don't think we'd be that far apart on healthcare reform if they'd just let the 2 of us sit down over a couple beers one evening and figure this bloody mess out for them :)

Reconciliation is not really where the fight is.

As disgusting as it is to twist and warp the use of reconciliation to meet partisan needs, the REAL fight will be the House vote.

The Senate can't do dick with reconciliation until the House passes the Xmas Eve Senate bill AS IS..

Meaning all of the gross pork barrel goodies for Nebraska, Florida and Louisiana, all of the ABORTIONS FOR EVERYONE ON THE FEDERAL DIME stuff, everything that 75% of Americans oppose will have to be passed by the House and then signed into Law by President Obama.

THEN...

Then, the The Joint Committee on Taxation will have to score the reconciliation changes in the context of CrapCare..

THEN...

Then, and ONLY then, can the Senate even CONSIDER any reconciliation changes.

So, it's entirely possible, even LIKELY that the CrapCare we have today, the CrapCare that 75% of Americans oppose, the CrapCare that ya'all have said you oppose yourselves....

It's likely that THAT CrapCare will remain the law of the land UNCHANGED.

Do ya'all really want CrapCare to pass??

Michale.....

Precisely. I've no problems with the Democrats using reconciliation, just do it already and let's see what unfolds. If HCR is a success, the Democrats will get all the credit, if it fails, they get all the blame. Sounds good to me.

The cornerstone of the Republican platform for healthcare right now is opposition. Pure opposition.

I wouldn't quite go that far, I certainly think tort reform, if it were done the right way, could peel off some Republican votes. But you'd expect me to say that, wouldn't you? ;-) But yes, if we're talking pure politics, I'd suggest that Democrats are better off using reconciliation and just passing it already. It's far from a foregone conclusion that they'll even get enough House votes for that, so all this "bipartisanship" is keeping them from the real issues.

If two people like you and I were sitting down to negotiate this, I think we could reach some common ground.

I've always said that two people with common sense could hash out better policies than most governments, of either party persuasion. Like you said, the game of politics and jockeying for position gets in the way too often.

Yet Republicans continue to paint the bill as extreme.

Without the public option or single payer, it's certainly not extreme. I'd say it's a bad bill, but there I think even you agree with me, albeit possibly with very different reasons. I actually support a minimal public option, as I think there needs to be a safety net to ensure people don't die needlessly.

if you're not going to pass something good, let it die.

I couldn't agree more. There's no point passing a bad bill.

What I'm arguing for is a stronger approach from Democrats.

Well, like you, I think by pursuing this current path the Democrats are doing themselves a world of harm. If they pass nothing, or try and pass something with "bipartisanship", they'll lose the progressive voters. Without having any gains from independents (who favour a public option) or Republicans (who want proper Tort reform). They'll please nobody. So yeah, politically, their approach needs to be much stronger, pass their agenda and be judged on what they've done, rather than what they haven't, come November.

Exactly. It makes great sport. But it shows Republicans aren't really serious in wanting to work on this issue. They're happy with the status quo of uninsured and out of control costs.

There's very little of the bill left that is "left". Dems already compromised away all the points that progressives want.

It's pretty clear that no matter what they do, Republicans are going to continue having fun and playing for big gains in November.

So I'm with you. If you're going to partisan, be partisan. Democrats have nothing to gain by trying to work w/ Republicans.

The cornerstone of the Republican platform for healthcare right now is opposition. Pure opposition. This means no matter what Democrats put forward, they're going to oppose it. So call this out. Then move forward.

Keep in mind, Moderate, that I'm only talking politics right now and not trying to argue details of the healthcare plan - which I'm not particularly fond of.

If two people like you and I were sitting down to negotiate this, I think we could reach some common ground. Why? Because I think we could come to a balance that both covers the uninsured, that doesn't favor corporations over people - and vice versa, and that uses market incentives and an appropriate amount of government oversight.

But, if we were negotiating, and you went on camera and called me a socialist, I don't know if I'd be inclined to want to sit down at the table with you. And herein lies the problem - it's not 2 people like us. It's a debate taking place where both sides are at the same time trying to jockey for political position.

I see Obama trying to do this. He scrapped single payer. He's been trying to find a middle ground. These aren't pretend concessions. As I've said, there's very little left that's "left".

Yet Republicans continue to paint the bill as extreme. This has me questioning, what have they gained by trying to find middle ground. Nothing.

What I'm arguing for is, do not compromise with Republicans unless you are going to get support from them. Do not compromise with them unless they're going to be serious and not go around playing games and calling you socialist. If that's the way things are going to be, you're not gaining anything by compromising.

-David

p.s. Unfortunately, I believe by not following this path that the Dems will end up pleasing no one. This is the way it's shaping up anyways. You're right that single payer would have been more popular with independents than forced insurance. Which is why when it comes to healthcare my personal belief was that if you're not going to pass something good, let it die. But I'm not really arguing about healthcare here. What I'm arguing for is a stronger approach from Democrats.

Fixed.

(Sorry, couldn't resist ;-))

They want tort reform. We add it. No support.

Oh come on. There's no actual tort reform in the bill, it simply incentivises existing state programs, and worse yet, it exempts ones that limit damages, which has been shown to be by far the most effective reform of medical malpractice. That's not tort reform.

Basically it's "tort reform" if malpractice lawyers got to write it, which Howard Dean intimated they practically did. Now if there was true tort reform in the bill and it still didn't get Republican votes, you'd have a leg to stand on. But that's not the case.

We could bring Reagan back from the dead and throw him into the bill and Republicans wouldn't support it.

I doubt Obama's going to be making any more "dead Reagan" gaffes again.

I always thought that compromise meant both sides giving a little.

It'd be nice for the Democrats to actually give a little, instead of smoke and mirrors making it look like they've given. Every single Republican idea is voluntary.

The CBO themselves have already said leaving tort reform to the states will not yield the same level of cost saving as a federal program. Allowing the states to set up interstate trade is going to change nothing. If they wanted to do it, they'd have done it already.

So all that does is to preserve the status-quo whilst pretending to concede to the Republicans and asking for concessions in return. Nice try, but no cigar.

Would you continue talking with someone who only told you what he wanted all the time? No.

Which the Republicans would say explains why they won't even discuss healthcare if the Senate bill is the starting point. Right now it still contains many of the Democrats' ideas, and none of the Republicans' (other than watered down to nothing). Yet the Democrats insist it must be the foundation of a bipartisan bill. Is that really bipartisanship?

In that case, you can keep it. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer my partisanship to be open, not cloaked in a veil of faux bipartisanship.

It's clear they're positioning themselves for the next election so we're going to move forward without them.

The exact same thing could be said of the Democrats. November looms large for both. Democrats suspect passing HCR will boost their chances, Republicans know that opposing it will boost theirs.

This is what the public wants to hear.

Not sure it is. Several of the "purple" states have an overwhelming amount of voters who oppose HCR. He may gain back some of the dyed-in-the-wool Democrats, but I suspect he'd lose a lot of independents. The insurance mandate, in particular, is very unpopular with independents.

they're going to turn around and call you a socialist.

Aw, but it's so much fun! I don't actually think he's a socialist, but it is a lot of fun to call him one and watch left-wingers cringe. Come on, you guys had your fun with Bush, it's our turn now ;-).

This is the kind of message that would improve his poll numbers.

Actually, suspect it'd probably hurt his poll numbers, given the increasing number of independent voters in the country, and those opposed to HCR on the rise too.

"It's clear Republicans are going to oppose this bill no matter what.

Uhhh.. Don't YOU oppose Crapcare???

If so, how can you blame the GOP for opposing it as well??

They hate single payer.

As do many Democrats...

We compromise. We get no support. They hate the public option. We get rid of it. No support. They want tort reform. We add it. No support.

Tort Reform is NOT added to CrapCare. According to Obama, they will "look into" Tort Reform..

That's it...

There is no "compromise" in CrapCare. There is none whatsoever.. Obama has placed a few "well, we'll look into it"s Republican ideas sprinkled here and there and calls that "compromise"..

What a crock o' crap...

Regardless. Sorry, folks. It's only going to get worse.

Here's the deal. If President Obama refuses to abandon CrapCare and put forth some REAL reform this will only go one of two ways. Both ways are disasters for Democrats.

CrapCare will fail utterly and completely because Pelosi can't pull in enough votes to pass the Senate version of CrapCare as it stands. This is the most likely scenario and it will be completely devastating for Democrats. Dems won't be able to blame Republicans for this at all. It will show the public that Democrats, even with every legislative and majority advantage possible, can't do dick. And the voters will carry this to the polls..

The second option is no more palatable for Democrats. Under this scenario, the House barely passes the Senate version of CrapCare as is.. Then the Senate, thru reconciliation passes the "changes". This is the exact same sort of crazy partisanship that the American people have rejected time and time again. A full 75% (SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT!!!) of Americans do NOT want CrapCare passed into law.. So, how do you think that 75% will feel if Democrats force it thru on a hyper-partisan basis?? That 75% will vote GOP and it will be a massacre at the polls for Democrats.

It's amazing. Once again, Democrats back themselves into a lose-lose corner.

What IS it about Democrats that make them always snatch defeat from the jaws of victory??

Michale.....

"It's clear Republicans are going to oppose this bill no matter what. They hate single payer. We compromise. We get no support. They hate the public option. We get rid of it. No support. They want tort reform. We add it. No support.

Are you picking up on the pattern here? We could bring Reagan back from the dead and throw him into the bill and Republicans wouldn't support it.

No I always thought that compromise meant both sides giving a little. Would you continue talking with someone who only told you what he wanted all the time? No.

It's clear they're positioning themselves for the next election so we're going to move forward without them."

This is what the public wants to hear. Quit dicking around with them. No matter how much you try to compromise with them they're going to turn around and call you a socialist. It's been going on for over a year.

This is the kind of message that would improve his poll numbers.

-David

Argumentum ad Bidenitum
I'm right because the longest argument always wins, you poopy-head, you!

President Obama has many problems to deal with - simultaneously - but his biggest problem continues to be the dysfunctional and toxic media and political culture - to borrow a phrase from another wise Californian - and the ineptitude and incompetence that run rampant through both.

Consequently, a dangerously ill-informed electorate doesn't do President Obama - or his poll numbers - any good, either.

It is during times like these that I wish Vice President Biden would rekindle his ‘Augean Stables’ speech. But, the media would get it all wrong again, anyway ... so why bother.

Argumentum ad vulcanum?

I'm right becase Spock says so.

Heh.

-CW

>Here's the one you'll probably have to use more often...

Ad DeadOnBallusAccuratium
...it's an industry term, poopy head.

I like it! And, I'm gonna add it to the list. :D

LOL!

thanks, vinny. how about:

Argumentum ad peliculum
i'm right because i can quote movies, ya hoser

Competition, as you say, is the bedrock of capitalism, and for me the core goal ought to be to deliver the best for the consumer. The theory being that what is in the consumer's best interests will lead to more custom, and more customers mean more profit. Unfortunately the recent trend has been to increase margins and deliver lower quality output for the consumer, and that is unacceptable.

It was, um, interesting to have that in the back of my mind during the [Clinton era] 90's as the mania for mergers & conglomerates swallowed up any real "competition," (the basis of a true capitalism) in pursuit of bigger & bigger profit dreams -- abetted by Senators who overturned the Glass - Steagall Act as archaic & irrelevant.

Another "Joe Wilson" moment.

Ya know, if that were Bush, ya'all would be screaming, "LIAR!!!!"... :D

Michale......

Here's the one you'll probably have to use more often...

Ad DeadOnBallusAccuratium
...it's an industry term, poopy head.

:D

Michale.....

Just wanted to say that I'm going to be filing away all of these infinitely useful argumentum ads ... for future reference, ya know.

And, that goes for the translations, too!

Heh heh heh ...

Of course a profit-based economy is the only choice; the problem is that a truly free market actually requires oversight to prevent oligopolies.

Under President Clinton, government regulation dwindled to nothing. It's worth noting, however, that Greenspan saw the current crisis coming and warned Ben Bernanke of it, yet Mr Bernanke chose to sit on his hands and do nothing.

I remember Greenspan uttering the "r" word back in February 2007.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a22f28c4-2626-11df-aff3-00144feabdc0.html

Any quatloo wagers as to whether or not it will be made?? :D

Michale.....

{perk} Open Thread???? >:D

Michale.....

The problem for the Democrats in Arkansas is that the state is strongly against healthcare reform (only 35% support, it according to surveys). It is likely to be a similar theme across the country in those "purple" states.

Primaries are part of the tools of American democracy

One of the many things I wish we'd replicate from the US political system.

allowing a surprise victory by a Democrat (see: NY-23's special election last year).

I just hope the Tea Partiers have learnt from that. Better the devil you know.

This would drag the Republicans, as a party, even further right.

Would it? If you strip away the fringe elements of the Tea Party, the "birthers" et al, you're left with a group that seems to me to be libertarian. Scott Brown was, after all, a Tea Party favourite and he's considered to be a left-wing Republican.

Which may ultimately lose them votes among Independents who usually vote Republican

Not sure that's true. I'd guess that most independents who vote Republican do so due to them being considered the party of low taxation. What the Tea Party folk are saying is, the Republicans have lost sight of that philosophy of fiscal conservatism. If anything I suspect the Tea Party might move the Republican Party into the centre and gain them more independent voters, not less.

During the 111th congress, opponents of Democratic legislative initiatives incorrectly began to refer to the budget reconciliation process as the nuclear option.[6] For a discussion of the legislatively-enacted reconciliation process, which only requires a majority vote, but which - unlike the nuclear option - does not alter Senate rules, see Reconciliation (United States Congress). Before late 2009, the term nuclear option had been used only to refer to the procedure outlined below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

I stand corrected..

But in my own defense, Democrats also refer to Reconciliation as "the nuclear option" as well, so...

Irregardless, my original point stands.

The parliamentary trick being used by the Democrats in this instance is an end run around the will of the American people..

And I STILL haven't gotten any response on why all of the sudden there are a bunch of new proponents of CrapCare... :D

Michale.....

You're too humble. So far you strike me as a very intelligent woman.

However, my only purpose in this thread is to question Michale's use of the Biden quote above

Well, in that case, we're in agreement. Biden's quote was very specific in what it was talking about. The nuclear option is not reconciliation, it was United States v Ballin.

I'd count Biden's quote along with Feinstein's and Schumer's, they were clever enough to limit the scope of their words to the nuclear option. My issue was far more with Obama's, Dodd's and to a lesser extent, Reid's comments. Those were overly broad and do open all three to accusations of hypocrisy now. Which makes it hard for them to call Republicans hypocrites (even if they're right) because, as Michale said, it could bite them on the arse.

Where Biden's comment is far more pertinent, however, is the Democrats' attempts to reform the filibuster, which some have claimed would need only 51 votes. Those who claim that 51 votes (well, 50 with Biden breaking the tie) are enough are invoking the nuclear option. I'd be curious to see where Biden stands on that issue now.

But, as I said, that is entirely beside the point I'm making here.

And that, I suspect, is where you and I are at cross-purposes, and hence the confusion. For me, Democratic use of reconciliation and their attempts to reform the filibuster are connected. Reconciliation serves to counterbalance filibuster. If you weaken filibuster so that only 51 votes are needed to pass a bill, you're essentially broadening reconciliation beyond its current limits (i.e matters related to the budget) to cover all legislative issues.

As you say, the framers were careful to strike a balance between majority rule and rights of the minority party. I recognise that this thread isn't about that, per se, but I've always been a "big picture" sort of guy so I see filibuster reform and reconciliation as inexorably linked. Whenever any party (and yes, I criticised the Republicans for doing this too) seeks reform of the filibuster to weaken it whilst also using reconciliation, I think it's necessary to look at whether this is tyranny of the majority, and ask questions about that party.

So it is apples and oranges, in one way, and it is not, in another way, since both involve the difference between simple and super majorities.

Yep. That, I suspect, is why Liz and I appear to be in disagreement. We're looking at the same issue from different perspectives. The two are technically different, but both evoke the same debate about tyranny of the majority in my mind, hence my earlier comments.

that sort of honesty is par for the course here.

And that is precisely why you're the first blog to ever get me to question whether I'm a moderate Republican or more of a blue dog Democrat. If it weren't for my opposition to Obama's Presidency, I suspect I might have hopped the aisle, but as it is, I'm staying red.

Hypocritical on my part?

I wouldn't say so.

I would say about 60 percent (30/30) are party diehards, and about 40 percent is in the middle

That sounds about right. I've always said it's about 70% (35-35) and 30% independent, but I think with the current climate there's an increasing number of independent voters disillusioned with both parties, so the numbers are probably closer to yours right now.

As for my way-too-early picks, I say Dems lose about 25 seats in the House (plus or minus five) and five seats in the Senate (plus or minus two). Dems hold both houses. If I'm wrong about either house, it'll be the House (could see a landslide for GOP there, just wouldn't bet on it at this point). Just my off-the-cuff guess.

I based my picks on five thirty eight. They put the modal number on the Senate at 53 (I'm just a tad more generous to the Republicans, naturally) and the modal number on the House in the low 40's. They do allow for the possibility it could be as high as 60, though I'm not quite that optimistic. Still can't see the Democrats retaining the House, although I'd be shocked if they don't retain the Senate.

But whether you call it the nuclear option, reconciliation or tyranny of the majority, it all boils down to one thing.

Democrats are trying to do an end run around the will of the people, using a parliamentary maneuver in a manner in which it was not designed for.

Hence, a "trick"..

The same kind of "trick" that they castigated Republicans for in 2005. Democrats are trying to "hide the decline" and, in doing so, are subverting the will of the American People.

Hence the hypocrisy.

But you have to at least admit that while what you say about Democrats is true in general (again, reconciliation is not technically the nuclear option as it was defined back then), that the inverse is also true: Republicans were for it before they were against it.

No argument from me on that. It's the nature of the political beast..

My only point is, and has been ad naseuem, is that when it comes to hypocrisy (and many other nasty habits), the Right is no worse than the Left. And the Left is no better than the Right.

Michale.....

Hoo boy, both the Senate race and the Gov. race out here are going to be interesting to watch, especially the Republican primaries for both. My guess? Meg's got a better shot than Carly, because EBay didn't get destroyed the way HP did.

Just my guess, though.

-CW

OK, here's my take on things. Liz is right, there's context you have to take into consideration on the quotes being bandied about. You can't just ignore the context of the quotes, if you're going to use them to support your argument.

As for the Constitution, it just says "advise and consent" for appointees, but actually doesn't address how bills should pass. It does outline some supermajorities for very specific cases, though -- impeachment (2/3) and amending the Constitution (3/4), for instance.

But the "nuclear option" of a few years ago does indeed differ from what Republicans are trying to make it now. Then, it would have involved a big change to Senate rules, which would have been semi-permanent (another Senate would have actively had to change it back). Now, it does not, because the 1974 Senate rule changes (76? I forget) where reconciliation was introduced would not have to change at all -- even if Biden himself had to oversee the Senate to beat back Republican objections and superfluous amendments.

So it is apples and oranges, in one way, and it is not, in another way, since both involve the difference between simple and super majorities.

Call a spade a spade. Politicians, Republican or Democrat, are being total and utter hypocrites on this matter. Chris almost admitted as much when saying that this is precisely how majority and minority parties behave, the only difference is which party is in which role. A little honesty goes a long way (so kudos to Chris for showing some, even on Partisan Friday).

Oh, I agree completely, that sort of honesty is par for the course here. Democrats and Republicans are both utter hypocrites on this issue (and many others) but that's part of the accepted game in Washington -- the real trick is to get the media to either buy into or ridicule the position.

Which is why I attempt to show Democrats how to do so. Hypocritical on my part? Perhaps. But a wise thing to do because the blowdried media has the memory and attention span of a houseplant? Undoubtedly.

Michale -

The "nuclear option" of changing the Senate rules on allowing filibusters on judicial nominees has nothing to do with "reconciliation" which is short for "budget reconciliaiton." They are indeed two separate issues. Now, you can fully argue that they are the same "tyranny of the majority" type of issue, but technically they are different things. So, while related, they're not equivalent, except in moral arguments, which you're free to make. All I'm saying is don't overdefine the term "reconciliation" into something it's not. "Tyranny of the majority" works a lot better to convey the same meaning.

I actually think you undercut the independent middle, though, in your estimates. I would say about 60 percent (30/30) are party diehards, and about 40 percent is in the middle -- the ones who determine elections. I have nothing to base this on but gut feeling, but since it helps your argument I don't think you'll have too much of a problem with my numbers.

But you have to at least admit that while what you say about Democrats is true in general (again, reconciliation is not technically the nuclear option as it was defined back then), that the inverse is also true: Republicans were for it before they were against it.

There's plenty of hypocrisy to go around, in other words.

As for my way-too-early picks, I say Dems lose about 25 seats in the House (plus or minus five) and five seats in the Senate (plus or minus two). Dems hold both houses. If I'm wrong about either house, it'll be the House (could see a landslide for GOP there, just wouldn't bet on it at this point). Just my off-the-cuff guess.

-CW

...both simply said tyranny of the majority was not what the founders intended. Either that applies to reconciliation too, or you're arguing that majority rule is less of a concern for legislation than judicial nominees. Pick one. I don't care which.

You’re confusing me ... granted, it doesn’t take much. :)

As I understand it, reconciliation is all about majority rule and is allowed under the rules of the Senate for certain matters that are related to the budget. Historically, it has been used on a relatively limited basis. The 2005 nuclear option, on the other hand, was an attempt by senate Republicans to change the rules of the Senate, by a majority vote, in an effort to eliminate the right to filibuster any judicial nominee.

In other words ... reconciliation, good ... nuclear option, bad.

However, my only purpose in this thread is to question Michale's use of the Biden quote above (about the 2005 debate over senate rules and the threat by Republicans to change those rules - through majority vote, by the way - in an effort to eliminate the right to filibuster judicial nominees) in a futile attempt to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the vice president with respect to the use of reconciliation to pass a healthcare bill in 2010.

As is quite par for the course, people are - purposefully, or ignorantly - equating what Biden was talking about in 2005 wrt judicial nominees with what might happen today wrt healthcare reconciliation without understanding the first thing about what that 2005 debate was all about. In other words, Michale offered up the Biden quote not only out of context but without having any relevance to the subject of this thread. And, THAT is what sticks in my craw, so to speak, and for reasons that should be fairly obvious to you by now. :)

To be clear, the so-called 'nuclear option' in 2005 involving judicial nominees was NOT about reconciliation - not then and not now. I am not making any judgement on whether or when majority rule should be allowed or be of concern in the US Senate. Though, I would say that the framers struck a pretty good balance between majority rule and minority rights. But, as I said, that is entirely beside the point I'm making here.

The nuclear option was all about changing the rules of the Senate to take away the right for a senator or senators to filibuster a judicial nominee. The use of reconciliation is a whole other animal and not relevant to judicial nominees, hence the "need" for the nuclear option in the first place.

And, so ... my bottom line here is to say that if you are going to use a Biden quote to support your arguments (are you listening, Michale!?), then just be sure that the quote is in context and relevant to the subject matter at hand. And, that’s all I have to say about that.

It's quite simple really. Obama and Dodds both said that majority rule was not what the founding fathers intended. Neither limited that to appointments, both simply said tyranny of the majority was not what the founders intended. Either that applies to reconciliation too, or you're arguing that majority rule is less of a concern for legislation than judicial nominees. Pick one. I don't care which.

Do you want me to answer that? Again?

And as I said, many of the quotes simply said that majority rule wasn't what the founders intended. No mention of limiting this to judicial nominations, just that the founders didn't intend tyranny of the majority. I point you again to Obama's quote and Dodds' too, neither of which limited their scope to judicial nominees.

How, then, do you explain those comments?

Well, I wouldn't quite go that far, but I fully expect them to be savaged come November and end up with a narrow majority in the Senate (Around 53 seats
including the two independents) and a narrow minority (220-215 at best, to 230-205 at worst) in the House. Some polls suggest as many as 60 seats in the House could switch to the Republicans, but I can't see it myself.

By pushing this CrapCare debacle closer to the mid-terms and making it so that this train-wreck is upper most in people's minds, I fully expect that the GOP will eek out slim majorities in both the House and Senate.

Like I said above, short of a major catastrophe to supplant the CrapCare issue in the American people's minds, Democrats are gonna take a thumpin' this November.

Remember, you heard it here first. :D

If the discussion is regarding reconciliation, then why did you include the Biden quote above? As you know, it had nothing to do with reconciliation.

Biden Floor Statement on the "Nuclear Option"

Uh, Liz..

You DO realize that "the Nuclear Option" *IS* Reconciliation, right??

The debate that was focused on judicial nominees had nothing whatsoever to do with reconciliation.

The aspect of the debate that is relevant here was on reconciliation as it pertained to judicial nominees.

CW and Moderate are partially correct when they say that reconciliation is a normal part of the Senate process. Well, maybe "normal" is not entirely accurate. Let's say that it is a legitimate tool in the Senate process.

But I submit that it's use to pass HealthCare is NOT legitimate. In THIS context, it's a parliamentary trick to bypass the will of the American people.

Democrats were against Reconciliation before they were for it.

And they run the risk of looking like morons by accusing the GOP of hypocrisy over the Reconciliation issue because of their blatant hypocrisy over the same issue.

Moderate is right.. Democrats should man up and just say, 'This is what we're doing. We're the majority, so frak off.'

By trying to pass off the whole thing as a failed exercise in bi-partisanship, they look like hypocritical fools. And the GOP is laughing all the way to the polls...

80% of the American people are political ideologues. They vote the Party line up and down. Since that 80% is split pretty much evenly down the middle, the Parties must address the remaining 20%.

And that 20%, by their very nature, are NOT stupid. They know what bi-partisanship looks like and they KNOW that what the Democrats have been doing is NOT bi-partisanship in any way, shape or form.

By continuing to blab on and on about bi-partisanship, when it's obvious that it ain't, the Democrats are pushing most, if not ALL, of that 20% firmly to the Right.

And THAT is why Dems will take a huge beating in the upcoming mid-terms..

Michale....

In other words ...

I've still got ask the question I asked earlier. Are you saying that tyranny of the majority is more of an issue for judicial nominees than legislation?

No, I am not. I'm saying that you are confusing two completely separate issues here. The debate that was focused on judicial nominees had nothing whatsoever to do with reconciliation.

I'm sorry ... ahem ... pardon me ... but you are completely missing the point!

Short of a nuclear attack on US soil or First Contact, I don't see how the Democratic Party is going to survive as a majority party in the upcoming mid terms..

Well, I wouldn't quite go that far, but I fully expect them to be savaged come November and end up with a narrow majority in the Senate (Around 53 seats
including the two independents) and a narrow minority (220-215 at best, to 230-205 at worst) in the House. Some polls suggest as many as 60 seats in the House could switch to the Republicans, but I can't see it myself.

If it were to happen, however, 195 House seats and 53 Senate seats, with Joe Lieberman always willing to vote with the Republicans, would make it almost impossible for Obama to get much done. That's why there's even a hint that he might be willing to be bipartisan on this because he knows he could face a hostile Congress after November. Actually, it's almost certain that he will.

Liz,

I've still got ask the question I asked earlier. Are you saying that tyranny of the majority is more of an issue for judicial nominees than legislation?

Some of the Democrats' comments in 2005 can be limited to their scope (Bush judicial nominations being filibustered) but others were much broader. Many of them made mention to majority rule being against the intent of the founding fathers. President Obama himself was one of those who did so.

Isn't reconciliation all about majority rule? Michale's right, the Democrats are being hypocrites too, and denying it only makes you look bad in light of all the evidence. Reid talking about the filibuster being a crucial check on the power of a party that controls both the White House and Congress and yet when faced with that exact scenario, seeming intent on reconciliation.

The only thing lessening Reid's hypocrisy is that so far he hasn't been one of those backing reform of the filibuster. Don't get me wrong, I think it should be reformed a bit (not as far as some suggest, but a bit) but what I don't like is people calling the Republicans hypocrites (which they are being) whilst the Democrats get a free ride when demonstrating the same hypocrisy.

Call a spade a spade. Politicians, Republican or Democrat, are being total and utter hypocrites on this matter. Chris almost admitted as much when saying that this is precisely how majority and minority parties behave, the only difference is which party is in which role. A little honesty goes a long way (so kudos to Chris for showing some, even on Partisan Friday).

Did I say 'judicial reconciliation'? No, I did not. Because that would be confusing apples and oranges, you know. :)

If the discussion is regarding reconciliation, then why did you include the Biden quote above? As you know, it had nothing to do with reconciliation.

By the way, here is where your Biden quote comes from ...

Biden Floor Statement on the "Nuclear Option"

May 23, 2005

Mr. BIDEN: Mr. President, my friends and colleagues, I've not been here as long as Senator Byrd, and no one fully understands the Senate as well as Senator Byrd, but I've been here for over three decades.

I think this is the single-most significant vote any one of us will cast in my 32 years in the Senate, and I suspect the senator would agree with that.

And we should make no mistake. This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab by the majority party propelled by its extreme right and designed to change the reading of the Constitution, particularly as it relates to individual rights and property rights. It's nothing more or nothing less.

And let me take a few minutes to explain that. Folks who want to see this change want to eliminate one of the procedural mechanisms designed for the express purpose of guaranteeing individual rights and they also, as a consequence, would undermine the protections of the minority point of view in the heat of majority excess.

We've been through these periods before in American history, but never to the best of my knowledge has any party been so bold as to fundamentally attempt to change the structure of this body.

Why else would the majority party attempt one of the most fundamental changes in the 216-year history of this Senate on the grounds that they are being denied seven of 218 federal judges, three of whom have stepped down?

What shortsightedness and what a price history will exact on those who support this radical move. Mr. President, I think it's important we state frankly, if for no other reason than the historical record, why this is being done.

The extreme right of the Republican party is attempting to hijack the federal courts by emasculating the court's independence and changing one of the unique foundations of the united states senate. That is, the requirement that the protection of the right of individual senators to guarantee the independence of the federal judiciary. This is being done in the name of fairness?

But, quite frankly, it's the ultimate act of unfairness to alter the unique responsibility of the United States Senate and to do so by breaking the very rules of the united states senate. Mark my words, what's at stake here is not the politics of 2005 but the federal judiciary and the united states senate of the year 2025.

This is the single-most significant vote, as I said earlier, that I will have cast in my 32 years in the senate. The extreme Republican right has made Justice Ginsburg's "Constitution in Exile," the name of a work he wrote, the framework of that "Constitution in Exile" their top priority.

It is their purpose to reshape the federal courts so as to guarantee a reading of the Constitution consistent with Judge Ginsburg's radical views of the 5th Amendment's taking clause, the Non-delegation Doe Doctrine, the 11th amendment and the 10th amendment.

I suspect some listening to me and some in the press will think I'm exaggerating. I would respectfully suggest they read Justice Ginsburg's work, "Constitution in Exile." Read it. Read it and understand what is at work here.

As I said, if you doubt what I'm saying, then I suggest you ask yourself the rhetorical question, "why for the first time since 1789 is the Republican-controlled Senate attempting to change the rule of unlimited debate, as it relates to federal----eliminate it as it relates to federal judges for the circuit court or supreme court?"

If you doubt what I say, please read what Justice Ginsburg has written.
Greve says "what is really needed here is a fundamental, intellectual assault on the entire new deal edifice. We want to withdraw judicial support for the entire modern welfare state." End of quote.

Read: social security, workmans comp. National labor root relations board. Read. F.D.A., read what all the byproduct of that shift in Constitutional authority meant.

If you want to hear more of what I'm -- I characterize as radical view -- and maybe it is unfair to say "radical." A fundamental view and what at least must be characterized as a stark departure from current Constitutional jurisprudence, then click onto American Enterprise Institute's web site. Read what they say.

Read what the purpose is. It's not about seeking a conservative court or placing conservative justices on the bench. The courts are already conservative. Seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices appointed by republican presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II -- seven of nine. 10 of 13 federal circuit court of appeals dominated by Republican appointees appointed by presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. 58% of the circuit court judges appointed by either presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

No, my friends and colleagues, this is not about building a conservative court. We already have a conservative court. This is about guaranteeing a Supreme Court made up of men and women like those who sat on the court in 1910 and 1920.

Those who believe shall as Justice Rogers does of California, that the Constitution has been in exile, has been in exile since the New Deal.

My friends and colleagues, the nuclear option is not an isolated instance. It is part of a broader plan to pack the court with fundamentalist judges and to cower existing conservative judges to tow the extreme party line. You all heard what Tom DeLay said after the federal courts refused to bend to the whip of the radical right in the Schiavo case.

DeLay declared, and I quote, "the time will come for men responsible for this to answer for their behavior" -- end of quote.

Even current conservative Supreme Court justices are looking over their shoulder with one extremist recalling the despicable slogan of Josef Stalin -- and I am not making this up -- in reference to a Republican appointee, Reagan Republican appointee, Justice Kennedy, when he said, "no man, no problem. Absent his presence, we have no problem."

Let me remind you, as I said, Justice Kennedy was appointed by president Reagan. Have they never heard of the independence of the judiciary?

As a fundamental part of our Constitutional system of checks and balances, as there is today literally the envy of the world, the envy of the entire world, and the fear of the extremist part of the world, an independent judiciary is their greatest fear.

Why are radicals focusing on the court? Well, first of all, it's their time to be in absolute political control because it's there. It's like why did Willie Sutton rob banks? He said because that's where the money is. 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's the very reason why we have the 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.

But there's a second reason why they're focusing on the courts and that is because they've been unable to get their agenda passed through the legislative body. Think about it. All the talk about how they represent -- represent the majority of the American people. None of their agenda has passed as is it relates to the 5th Amendment, as it relates to zoning laws, as it relates to the ability of federal agencies like the food and drug administration, the E.P.A. to do their job.

Read what they write when they write about the nondelegation doctrine. That simply means we in the Congress, as they read the Constitution, cannot delegate to the E.P.A. the authority to set limits on how many carcinogens, how much of a percentage of carcinogens can be admitted into the air or admitted into the water.

They'd insist that we, the Senate, have to vote on every one of those rules, that we, the Senate and the House, with the ability of the president to veto works have to vote on any and all drugs that are approved or not approved.

You think I'm exaggerating this. Look at these web sites. These aren’t a bunch of wackos. These are a bunch of very bright, very smart, very well-educated intellectuals who see these federal restraints as a restraint upon competition, a restraint upon growth, a restraint upon the powerful.

The American people see what's going on. They're too smart and they're too practical. They may not know the meaning of the nondelegation doctrine. They may not know the clause of the 5th Amendment relating to property. They may not know the meaning of the 10th and 11th Amendment as interpreted by Mr. Ginsburg and others. But they know that the strength of our country lies in the common sense and our common pragmatism which is antithetical to the poisons of the extremes on either side.

The American people will soon learn that Justice Janice Rogers Brown, one of the nominees that we are not allowing to be passed, one of the ostensible reasons for this nuclear option being employed has decried the supreme court's -- quote -- "socialist revolution of 1930."

Read what they say. Read what they mean. The very year that a 5-4 court upheld the Constitutional -- the Constitutionality of Social Security against a strong challenge. 1937, Social Security almost failed by one vote. It was challenged in the supreme court as being confiscatory.

People argued then that a government has no right to demand that everyone pay into the system, no right to demand that every employer pay into the system. Some of you may agree with that. It's a legitimate argument. But one rejected by the supreme court in 1937 that Janice Rogers Brown refers to as the "socialist revolution" of 1937.

If it hadn't been for some of the things they've already done, no one would believe anything I'm saying here. These guys mean what they say. And the American people are going to soon learn that one of the leaders of the "Constitution in Exile" school, the group that wants to reinstate the Constitution as it existed in 1920, said that another -- said of another filibustered judge, William Pryor, that -- quote -- "Pryor is the key to this puzzle. There's nobody like him. I think he's sensational. He gets almost all of it." That's the reason why I oppose him. He gets all of it.

And you're about to get all of it if they prevail. We'll not have to debate about Social Security on this floor. So the radical right makes its power play now and they control all centers of political power, however temporary. The radicals push through the nuclear option and then pack the courts with unimpeded judges who by -- unimpeded judges who by current estimations will serve an average of 25 years.

The right focused on packing the courts because their agenda is so radical that they're unwilling to come directly to you, the American people, and tell you what they intend. Without the filibuster, President Bush will send over more and more judges of this nature but perhaps three or four supreme court nominations then there will be nothing, nothing that any moderate Republican friends and I will be able to do about it.

Judges who will influence the rights of average Americans, the ability to sue your H.M.O. that denies you your rights, the ability to keep strip clubs out of your neighborhood because they un -- make zoning laws unconstitutional without you paying to keep the person from not building. The ability to protect the land your kids play on, the water they drink, the air they breathe, and the privacy of your family in your own home.

Remember, many of my colleagues here say there is no such thing as a right to privacy in any iteration under the Constitution of the United States of America. Fortunately, we've had a majority of judges who's disagreed with that over the past 70 years. But hang on, folks.

The fight over judges at bottom is not about abortion and a God. It's about giving greater power to the already powerful. The fight is about maintaining our civil rights protections, about workplace safety and worker protections, about effective oversight of financial markets and protecting against insider trading. It's about Social Security.

What is really at stake in this debate point blank is the shape of our Constitutional system for the next generation. And the nuclear option is a two-fer.

It excises independence from our courts into the -- and at the same time emasculates the Senate. Put simple, the nuclear option would transform the senate from the so-called "cooling saucer" our Founding Fathers talked about to cool the passions of the day to a pure majoritarian body, like a parliament.

We've heard a lot in recent weeks about the rights of the majority and of obstructionism. But the Senate is not meant to be a place of pure majoritarianism. Is majority rule really what you want?

Do my Republican colleagues really want majority rule in this Senate?
Well, let me remind you, 44 of us Democrats represent 161 million people. 161 million Americans voted for these 44 Democrats. Do you know how many Americans voted for the 55 of you? 131 million. If this were about pure majorities, my party represents more people in America than the Republican party does.

But that's not what it's about. Wyoming, the home state of the Vice President of this body, gets one senator for every 246,000 citizens. California gets one senator, one senator for 17 million Americans.

More Americans voted for Vice President Gore than they did Bush by majoritarian logic, Gore won the election. The Republicans control the Senate and they've decided that they're going to change the rule. At its core, it is filibuster's not -- the filibuster's not about stopping a nominee or a bill.

It's about compromise and moderation. That's 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 you have to deal with me as one senator. It doesn't mean I get my way. It means you may have to compromise. You may have to see my side of the argument. That's what it's about.

Engendering compromise and moderation. Ladies and gentlemen, the nuclear option extinguishes the power of independence and moderates in this senate. That's it. They're 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 understand the frustration of my Republican colleagues. I've been here 32 years. Most of the time in the majority.

And whenever you're in the majority, it's frustrating to see the other side block a bill or a nominee you support. I've walked in your shoes. And I get it. I get it so much that what brought me to the United States Senate was the fight for civil rights.

My state, to its great shame, was segregated by law, was a slave state. I came here to fight it. But even I understood, with all the passion I felt as a 29-year-old kid running for the senate, the purpose -- the purpose -- of extended debate, getting rid of the filibuster has long-term consequences.

There's one thing I've learned in my years here, once you change the rules and surrender the senate's institutional power, you never get it back. And we're about to break the rules to change the rules. I don't want to hear about fair play from my friends. Under our rules, you're required to get a two-thirds vote -- I mean, excuse me, 60 votes to change the rules.

Watch what happens, watch what happens when the Majority Leader stands up and says to the Vice President, if we go forward with this, and he calls the question. And one of us, I expect our leader on the Democratic side, will stand up and say, "parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Is this parliamentary appropriate -- parliamentarily appropriate?" and in every other case that I've been here in 32 years, the presiding officer leans down to the parliamentarian and says, "what's the rule, Mr. Parliamentarian?" the parliamentarian turns and tells him. Hold your breath, parliamentarian.

He's not going to look to you because he knows what you would say. He would say, this is not parliamentarily appropriate. You cannot change the Senate rules by a pure majority vote.

If any of you think I'm exaggerating, watch on television. Watch when this happens. And watch the vice president ignore -- he's not required to look to an unelected officer. But that has been the practice for 218 years. He will not look down and say, "what is the ruling?"

He will make the ruling, which is a lie. A lie about the rule. Isn't what really going on here, the majority doesn't want to hear what others have to say, even if it's the truth?

Senator Moynihan, my good friend who I served with for years, said "you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts."

The nuclear option abandons America's sense of fair play. It's 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 Republican side, you may own the field right now but you won't own it forever. And I pray god when the Democrats take back control, we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing

But I'm afraid you will teach my new colleagues the wrong lessons. We're only temporary custodians of the Senate. But the Senate will go on. And I can see my time is up. Let me conclude by saying again, mark my words. History will judge this Republican majority harshly if it makes this catastrophic move.

I yield the floor.

That should read, "Trying to cover up the hypocrisy with faux-BI-partisanship."

I am going on 38 hours awake, so bear with me... :D

Michale.....

The discussion was regarding reconciliation..

You say "Judicial Reconciliation" and I say "HealthCare Reconciliation"..

The simple fact is, Democrats are being hypocrites. They (and ya'all) compound that hypocrisy by trying to A} Pretend it's not and 2} Trying to cover up the hypocrisy with faux-partisanship.

Regardless of all that, I thought ya'all had made it clear that ya'all were against CrapCare?

Why the change of heart?? Why, all of the sudden, do you defend it's passing?

It's a garbage piece of legislation that will do more harm than good.

It's amazing how the Democratic Party has, once again, painted itself into another perfect lose-lose corner..

Consider it...

If Democrats fail to accomplish anything, they will be painted as the Party that is simply incapable of governing... Even with a Super-Majority...

If the Democrats push thru this crap legislation using parliamentary maneuvering, crap legislation that 75% of Americans DON'T WANT PASSED, then they will be painted as doing something that is very bad for the country, SOLELY for the sake of political survival.

Democrats are COMPOUNDING this moronic stance by actually pushing the whole debacle CLOSER to the mid-term elections.

Howz THAT for stupidity.. Rather than get things out of the way as soon as possible, to allow the maximum amount of time possible for the public to forget, Democrats are actually delaying things so that this fiasco is actually closer to the mid-term elections..

If this was a Tom Clancy novel or a season of '24', then the only possible explanation is that top Democratic Party leaders are actually Republican agents, trying to bring down the Democratic Party..

As it is, the ONLY thing that makes any sort of sense is complete and utter incompetence by the Democratic Party leadership..

Seriously...

Does ANYONE see ANY possibility of an outcome that doesn't totally decimate the Democratic Party??

Short of a nuclear attack on US soil or First Contact, I don't see how the Democratic Party is going to survive as a majority party in the upcoming mid terms..

Michale......

Hang on a minute. You're saying tyranny of the majority is more of an issue in respect of judicial nominees (a power that was specifically granted to the President with only an oversight role intended for the Senate) and less of an issue when it comes to legislation? That's a pretty hard argument to make.

Especially when one considers the role of recess appointments, where the President can happily appoint who he likes without Senate approval.

If not, much of the same logic that applied then applies now. Either tyranny of the majority was something the founders didn't intend (which I think was precisely why the constitution has so many checks and balances) or it was.

Obama's quote and Dodd's quote both make reference to rule of the majority not being what the founding fathers intended. Feinstein and Schumer's lines are a little more circumspect and do allow for the use of reconciliation.

Which is unsurprising as both of them have, I believe, signed on to the letter pushing for a public option via reconciliation. The problem is, the logic that both of them use to push for that is equally, if not more, applicable to Tort reform that the CBO projects will save twice as much as the public option.

Note, I have not, and still do not, oppose the use of reconciliation. Whilst I'm certain the founding father didn't intent tyranny of the majority, and hence I maintain the filibuster must remain an option for Senate minorities, they did intend a balance between an unlimited government and a hamstrung one.

Reconciliation allows a duly elected majority to push through some of their agenda (that which can be shown to have an impact on the budget) but not all of it, over and above filibuster. That's precisely what I'd argue was what the founders would have intended, though I believe both the filibuster and reconciliation are more recent developments, the first originating in 1851 and the second in 1974 under the Congressional Budget Act of that year.

What gets me isn't the accuracy of the 2005 statements. Those were, in my view, an accurate assessment of the founders' intent. What gets me is all the talk of Republican hypocrisy (which is definitely there) when the Democrats are just as guilty. I'm with Michale; all politicians are hypocrites. Damn them.

I know you're a pretty smart guy, so you know very well why your quotes are out of context and not appropriately linked to the current debate on healthcare.

But, you must think the rest of us here are pretty stupid.

You know very well that the debate in May 2005 was about judicial nominees and not about budget reconciliation. That's why, for example, you left reconciliation out of Biden's quote above ... not so cleverly, I might add.

"Ram it through."

Oh, and while doing so, complain LOUDLY about the lack of "bipartisanship" to scare the odd Dem into voting for a bill they had ZERO input on.

There's nothing wrong with that, and if that were all the Democrats were doing I'd have little to complain about when it comes to the Democrats' behaviour on this.

What, however, the Democrats are doing, is "playing it safe", claiming they want bipartisanship, even going so far as to claim the bill is bipartisan because it has watered down versions of the Republican ideas (presumably so they can blame someone if it all goes horribly wrong), despite no Republican votes for it.

And then insisting they have no desire to use reconciliation when they clearly do.

Now, notice the lack of any "outreach" or "bipartisanship" WHATSOEVER.

Which, for me at least, is a lot better than what I perceive to be a pretence of bipartisanship, a faux outreach, if you will, from the Democrats now. A party shouldn't be afraid of standing or falling by its own policies.

Bipartisanship was attempted on HCR, long before the Obama summit.

I'm not sure it was. I've seen the ideas that are claimed to be the Republican ones, and they're largely just voluntary pilot schemes. Interstate trade is left to voluntary schemes that are at the discretion of the states (when they've shown no willingness to open up their borders previously). Tort reform had its knees cut off by insisting that the government would only subsidise those schemes where damages weren't capped (which is one of the best reforms available).

If the Republicans had fallen for that old trick they'd have been taken for fools.

You talk about the public option being watered down, but so was every single Republican idea. The difference is that I think the Democrats' ideal public option would have been no more than a trojan horse for single-payer. Many Democrats themselves admitted it was. For me, clearly, the Republican ideas are far better.

How's that for a healthy dose of Friday partisanship? ;-)

(Well, technically it's Sunday now, but you know what I mean)

do you honestly think that even if Republicans were allowed to TOTALLY WRITE the sections on interstate sales and tort reform -- do you honestly think that EVEN THEN a single Republican would vote on it?

I do actually. I think those are the two things the Republicans want, and they want them done properly (i.e by Republicans - sorry, couldn't resist! It's Partisan Friday).

Tort reform is NOT a magic bullet

I didn't say it was. Nonetheless it will save almost half as much as the entire Senate bill will, with no diminishing of the quality of healthcare (the CBO said so). Why not save that money? Why are the Democrats reluctant to include proper Tort reform?

How can Democrats like Russ Feingold push for a public option they claim will save $25 billion and, with a straight face, resist Tort reform that will save twice that?

Individual states have passed tort reform. California is one of them. It has not kept premiums down.

Allow me to quote the nonpartisan CBO in response:

Studies that simply observe changes in premiums
over time in states that do, and do not, adopt reforms are less suited to isolating
the actual effects of tort reform.

The CBO seem to be suggesting, and I think they're right, that one cannot simply extrapolate the success (or otherwise) of Tort reform based on the state schemes. They go on to suggest that this stems from the fact that state reforms are unable to significantly reduce defensive medicine, whereas the federal proposal would do.

THe health industry in the US is a $2.5 TRILLION a year industry. So we are talking about two-tenths of one percent of it. 0.2% -- that's it. In other words, even if tort reform is the best idea since sliced bread, there STILL would be a massive problem.

The senate bill is proposed to save $127 billion over ten years. That's "only" $12.7 billion a year. As for the House bills, what they give with one hand they take away with the other, and the CBO confirmed that both bills put together would likely increase costs, not lower them. So Tort reform would be likely to increase the effectiveness of the existing Democrat proposals by almost 150%.

$12.7 billion a year is still only 0.5% of $2.5 trillion. So why would that not leave the same "massive problem" you talk about? Why is that the "magic bullet" to fix things?

Now, I do agree with you that Thurs. there was no real intent (other than Obama himself, as I mentioned in the article) to get anywhere with bipartisanship.

That's all I wanted to hear. I just wanted someone on the Democrat side to have had the fortitude to shoot straight and say "screw bipartisanship" in so many words. It's all the posturing that gets to me. And yes, the Republicans are doing it too, but the minority party always postures. Majority parties should be stronger.

Republican calls to "start all over" mean -- literally -- "not get anything done this year." Again, bad faith effort.

Not sure it's bad faith, they just thinking starting from a flawed foundation is really no way to go. Besides which, we both know it's posturing. If Democrats did, as you say, allow the Republicans to have Tort reform the way they want it (in return, of course, for some concessions the other way), I suspect the GOP would have backed down on its insistence on "starting over".

But when Republicans were in charge, they didn't even give such LIP SERVICE to bipartisanship

Call me old fashioned but I prefer that. I like it when a party says "Look, this is what we believe in, this is what we campaigned on, this is what the American people elected us for, and damnit we're going to pass it whether you like it or not".

Which is precisely why I respect FDR for how he handled business on the New Deal. And look how well it worked out for him. He won not one, not two, not three, but four terms in office and is considered, across party lines, a truly great President.

Yet we still have Democrats unwilling to bite the bullet. There's still loads of talk about bipartisanship. It just seems, to me, like a party that's afraid to say to the American people "This is who we are, if you don't like it, elect the other lot".

if you compare them to the way Republicans ran things, you'll quickly see that Dems are about 5,000 times more willing to get some input from the other side in what they're doing.

The difference is, as you yourself pointed out, the Republicans didn't even pay lip service to the idea of being willing to get input. They were open about being closed, so to speak, and, as you said, the Republican leadership openly admitted that they would jam through anything they wanted if they had a majority. I prefer that.

All this weakness from a party that still holds sizeable majorities is shocking. At least the Republicans weren't hiding the fact they were saying "screw you" to Democrats.

My issue isn't with the amount of bipartisanship, but with the unwillingness of the Democrats to admit that they're going to go it alone, and always wanted to. It just seems like too many Democrats are worried about reelection and not their policy.

Having ranted all that, in response to your "2)" above, there have actually been quite a few bills passed with a number of GOP votes in the past year.

As soon as I wrote that I thought they must have been. Oh well, I was wrong, but it had little impact on the overall point. It's still tough to argue that a party hates the unemployed when it has broken ranks on a jobs bill.

As for your comments about reconciliation, I don't have a problem with the GOP shamefully using advantages, as long as the Dems are willing to do so as well.

What gets to me is that the Democrats want to sugar coat these practices with the veneer of bipartisanship. Like you, although possibly for different reasons, I'd just want them to be less wussy and just go ahead and pass their legislation.

Then when it sucks I can tear them apart for it ;-)

(See, I'm OK with playing the "extra helping of partisan" game on Fridays, it's actually a lot of fun to break free of the shackles of having to be balanced).

Politically, this is a loser for the GOP, and the leadership knows it.

Although I don't agree that it is a loser, it's clear the leadership does agree with you, which is why they've cleverly hedged their bets. I just can't see any major upside for the Democrats when the Republicans can just say "hey, we denounced him too".

And if the American people do support his actions, then the Republican will ride his fiscal conservatism all the way to the November elections. You have to admit, they've positioned themselves perfectly on this issue. It's win-win for them no matter what.

a warning to Dems: reconciliation is NOT the whole battle...

I've said that before too. Even if they pass it through reconciliation, who's to say that the Republicans won't take both houses in November (highly unlikely, to be fair, but still possible) and try and eat away and erode the Democrats' proposals?

Especially since, according to the CBO, the cost of the Senate bill (in terms of its revenue-raising portions) will outstrip the spending under it until 2016.

(Does anyone else find it weird writing about years like 2016 or 2020? I suspect it's all those sci-fi films from my childhood set in a "far away" future of 2015. Which is now only two years away. Where the hell is my flying car? Or my hoverboard?)

"What I worry about is, you still have 2 chambers of Congress in the House & Senate, but you have complete and absolute authoritarian rule of the majority and that's just not what the founders intended."
-Senator Obama, 2005

"{Reconciliation} is a bridge too far, Mr President. We can't go there. You have to restrain yourself, Mr President."
-Senator Clinton, 23 May 05

"We are on the precipice of a Constitutional Crisis. The checks and balances are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option. Checks and balances that say that if you get 51% of the vote, you don't get your way 100% of the time."
-Senator Schumer 18 May 05

"The right to extend debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House. In these cases, the filibuster serves as a check on the power of unlimited government."
-Senator Harry Reid 18 May 05

"We need to sit down with each other and work things out. That's why the rules exist. That's why we're here. Why have a bicameral legislative body? Why have two chambers? What were the framers thinking about? They understood that there is a tyranny of the majority."
-Senator Dodd 18 May 05

"If Republicans use the nuclear option, the US Senate becomes ipsofacto, the House Of Representatives where the majority rules supreme and the party in power can dominate with absolute power."
-Senator Dianne Feinstein

"{Reconciliation}.. is a fundamental power grab. I say to my Republican colleagues, you may own the field right now, but you won't own it forever. I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing."
-Senator Biden, 2005

And my personal favorite..

"A Majority Vote makes sense"
-President Obama, 2010

" {A Majority Vote}... that's just not what the founders intended."
-Senator Obama, 2005

Now, please explain exactly how those are "out of context"..

They are no more "out of context" than CW's quotes.

They are quotes from Democrats that refer to reconciliation as all forms of evil and arrogance.

Granted, hypocrisy is a major part of the politician's psyche..

But you can't deny the hypocrisy.

Michale.....

And, just between you, me and the four walls ... if Michale provides any more quotes out of context, then I may have to throw something much bigger, and with feeling!

I'm kidding, of course.

Sort of.

:-)

I just know Michale would be more than willing to provide Dem quotes, he's been doing so for a while. Which is kind of what got me to do the research for this article -- I couldn't find any good list of GOP quotes which said the opposite.

I still firmly believe: the talking points remain the same, it's just the parties who switch places. But the media needs this reminder, because Republicans try to bamboozle everyone into believing they are somehow "pure" whenever these "process" things get debated in the media. I thought Dems needed some ammo, that's all.

:-)

-CW

Looked it up.

The "24 years" comment WAS in relation to drilling for oil in ANWR, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. Here is more of the presser, from both Alaskan senators at the time (Murkowski, Stevens):

SEN. STEVENS: And it's as important to me as the first step that Armstrong took when he stepped off on the moon. I mean, this is a big step, all right?

SEN. MURKOWSKI: Amen.

Q Do you retract your statement that you made last week about -- now will you consider another term, based on -- (off mike)?

SEN. MURKOWSKI: He's not going anywhere.

SEN. STEVENS: I didn't say I was quitting. I said I was very depressed over having been on this track like a white rat now for 24 years to try and get the Congress to do what was promised us in 1980. And if you went down that same track for 24 years, wouldn't you be a little depressed? I was. I'm backing off of that now. (Laughter.)

=======
Because they were from Alaska, they had likely been fighting this fight for 24 years. But seriously, to compare it to man walking on the moon? A bit over the top...

Oh, what I didn't mention is that ANWR drilling did indeed pass through reconciliation and then was stripped out elsewhere by those wily Democrats. Never made it into law under Bush, even though they tried every year (and used reconciliation on it more than once). In other words, a warning to Dems: reconciliation is NOT the whole battle...

-CW

I'm getting sick of this from the other side of the aisle. A little recent history is in order, here. When Republicans were running the show (roughly, depending on the house, from Newt Gingrich through Bush to 2006), here is how they approached legislation:

Get together a majority of the GOP in the House -- the most right-wingiest, of course.

Write a bill (in the "backrooms").

Strongarm the rest of their caucus to vote for it (Republicans are, admittedly, MUCH better at doing this than the Dems are).

Bully the Senate into supporting it (this didn't always work so well for Newt, to be fair).

If all else failed, use reconciliation in the Senate.

If that was going to fail, allow the absolute MINIMUM of Democratic amendments in, in order to peel off a few Dems to pass it.

"Ram it through."

Oh, and while doing so, complain LOUDLY about the lack of "bipartisanship" to scare the odd Dem into voting for a bill they had ZERO input on.

Senate Dems, at this point, would indeed filibuster every now and again (a few dozen, at the most, during any 2 year Congressional term). But mostly, Republicans got their way, with (at most) a SHRED of Dem input.

Now, notice the lack of any "outreach" or "bipartisanship" WHATSOEVER. Not that the media cared, as they have LONG defined "bipartisanship" as "Democrats doing what Republicans want."

Now jump forward to HCR. Dems in the House started with a bill. They then allowed Republicans to make almost 200 suggestions and changes to the bill, in the spirit of bipartisanship. For this effort, they got zero votes in committee, and one vote on the floor.

Then it moved to the Senate. From July to November or so, Max Baucus' committee refused to move on it, and tried to get a bipartisan "gang of six" on the committee to hash out a truly bipartisan bill. One of these gang-of-sixers snickered to the press during this time that no matter what changes they got, Republicans were going to vote against it to kill Obama's main legislative effort, NO MATTER WHAT. In other words, they were dealing in bad faith. Sum result: one GOP vote in committee, zero on the floor.

The GOP complained loudly about the public option. It was watered down, watered down, watered down, and then finally taken out due to Joe Lieberman, who might as well be called a Republican. Tort reform was added, as a pilot program. There are LOTS of pilot programs in the bill, in an effort to see what exactly does bring down costs. Whatever works will likely be beefed up later. This is the same way FDR's New Deal was attempted -- see what works, use what does, and discard what doesn't.

So let's sum up: GOP got to add things in the House, but not as much as they would have liked. GOP got to delay things in the Senate for four or five months, but no matter what changes were made refused to vote on anything.

Bipartisanship was attempted on HCR, long before the Obama summit. Not as much as Republicans would have liked, because their definition is always "Democrats agreeing to whatever Republicans want." Well, tough cookies. They are 41/59 in BOTH houses right now, and that's the way it goes.

From earlier comments you made last week: do you honestly think that even if Republicans were allowed to TOTALLY WRITE the sections on interstate sales and tort reform -- do you honestly think that EVEN THEN a single Republican would vote on it? Dems finally realized this, and are moving forward.

Tort reform is NOT a magic bullet. Individual states have passed tort reform. California is one of them. It has not kept premiums down. In fact, CA is where one company just raised premiums 39%. WITH tort reform already in place.

By your earlier numbers, which I do remember from the CBO, if tort reform saves $50b over ten years, then that is $5b a year. THe health industry in the US is a $2.5 TRILLION a year industry. So we are talking about two-tenths of one percent of it. 0.2% -- that's it. In other words, even if tort reform is the best idea since sliced bread, there STILL would be a massive problem.

Now, I do agree with you that Thurs. there was no real intent (other than Obama himself, as I mentioned in the article) to get anywhere with bipartisanship. But that's because it hasn't gotten Dems anywhere all year. Republican calls to "start all over" mean -- literally -- "not get anything done this year." Again, bad faith effort. But when Republicans were in charge, they didn't even give such LIP SERVICE to bipartisanship -- it was "my way or the highway." THe House leadership even openly admitted this -- as long as they had a "majority of the majority" of the GOP on board, they would jam anything they wanted through. Democrats didn't even figure in the equation -- they were at times quite literally LOCKED OUT of the room where the discussions were being held.

So you can say Dems aren't perfectly bipartisan, and that's true. But if you compare them to the way Republicans ran things, you'll quickly see that Dems are about 5,000 times more willing to get some input from the other side in what they're doing.

Just some historical perspective, in other words.

Having ranted all that, in response to your "2)" above, there have actually been quite a few bills passed with a number of GOP votes in the past year. The media doesn't report on them, because it doesn't fit their storyline. I can dig up an old column which points out a few, if you're interested. The GOP, on other than "media spotlight" issues, actually has been doing a fairly good job at the whole bipartisan stuff, it's just a "tree falling in a forest with no media to cover it" thing, I believe. To be fair, and all.

As for your comments about reconciliation, I don't have a problem with the GOP shamefully using advantages, as long as the Dems are willing to do so as well. I'm trying to browbeat the Dems into discovering a backbone here, more than beating up on the GOP. It could come off either way, but my intent is to shake the Dems roughly and say "WAKE UP!! They'd do it to you! Don't be a wuss about doing it to them!!"

In British-ese, I'm trying to give the Dems a "short, sharp shock." Heh.

AS for the budget and deficit, that's a whole different subject. Suffice it to say, here, that I think there are a lot of people either unemployed or who know someone who is whose main concern is not the deficit right now, but buying food and paying the rent. Politically, this is a loser for the GOP, and the leadership knows it.

Anyway, this is way too long as it is...

Hey, I warned you when you first showed up that Fridays were "extra helping of partisan" days... heh heh.

-CW

Of course, it would necessarily be out of context. :)

Nixon actually agreed to a plan that is MUCH better than the one Dems are trying to pass now. Senator Teddy Kennedy, at the time, turned it down. This is the best example (on the healthcare issue, at least) of "the perfect being the enemy of the good." If Teddy had taken what Nixon was offering, we would be in a LOT better place as a country on the issue right now. Don't know if that's where HMOs came from, but that may have been from the "half a loaf" sort of thing they wound up with, don't really know.

I'm not one to usually stand up for Nixon, but have to say it was indeed a missed opportunity.

I'll answer your previous stuff in a separate comment...

-CW

I never said that was possible. What I said was that the text here is entirely unambiguous, so there's no need to "interpret" it. Besides, as I pointed out, this issue comes under the right of the free press as well as free speech.

What do you define as a "free press"? Are they allowed to report crimes faithfully?

You seem to think you're making the argument that I'm unable and unqualified to "interpret" the constitution.

Not at all. I'm making the argument that your interpretation of it is wrong.

If, as you say, the 1st amendment protects speech then the FCC is clearly unconstitutional as its sole purpose is to regulate the media.

Again, untrue. All constitutional rights have limits on them. Otherwise the Federal Assault Weapons Ban would have been unconstitutional. It's one of many examples of constitutionally valid law that has placed limits on the Bill of Rights.

If the 1st amendment protects all speech how is it that the government spends so much time and effort regulating speech?

Because all rights have limits on them. The right to privacy, abortions, none of these are unlimited. If that weren't the case then hate speech wouldn't be illegal if it were uttered by a political party. Are you then arguing that white supremacist parties can spew their hate speech with no repercussions? I'm certainly not.

And I'm sure the courts will back you up if I refuse to pay taxes because I intend to use the money to campaign for legalized drugs!

That's absurd and you know it. The right to bear arms, for example, doesn't give you carte blanche to shoot people for no reason. Equally, whilst you do have the right to campaign for legalised drugs (thanks to free speech), that does not give you carte blanche to ignore laws that have a tangential effect on free speech. Murder can be said to "limit" the right to bear arms. But no sane person would ever make that argument. Your argument is similar.

To begin, if something is not "essential or urgent" it is not an emergency.

Exactly. I never said otherwise. Let me quote what I said for you again:

Dealing with the emergency was, clearly, essential or urgent, but there are, as I showed, ways of dealing with emergencies without calling 911. (emphasis added)

In fact, far from countering my argument, you've actually inadvertently added more weight to it. If people can deal with small fires themselves, then calling 911 mustn't be an imperative, otherwise they'd have had to call. The emergency clearly is urgent and it's essential it's dealt with. The fact that can be accomplished without 911 only proves that calling 911 in an emergency is neither essential nor urgent. Thank you.

Speaking of oxymorons take another look at your "involuntary consent," there is no such thing

And yet you said:

As for your take on the law and consent, "informed consent" has been a requirement if "agreements" are to be legally binding under common law for centuries.

If something must be voluntary to be consent, and therefore anything that is not voluntary is, by definition, not consent, what on Earth does "informed consent" mean? Surely if the word "consent" only applies to voluntary consent, all "consent", by your definition, is informed? So why not simply say that consent is all that's required, and if it's not voluntary, then the word doesn't even apply? Why qualify it with the word "informed"? See, it seems you're the one who's arguing that consent is all that's required to make an agreement binding.

In fact my argument has always been that informed consent is required, precisely because it's possible for consent to have been coerced, and that isn't "informed".

Accurate information can be compiled arranged and presented in manners that communicate untrue concepts.

Agreed. But you said, and I quote:

So while, as so many of your arguments are, your statement is accurate it is also patently untrue.

So you're saying that my statement is accurate, and it's untrue. Not that the conclusion I drew was untrue, but that the statement I made was untrue. It is clearly impossible for a single statement to be both accurate and untrue.

It's possible for the statement to be accurate and misleading, and that the conclusion drawn from the statement is therefore untrue, but you didn't say that. You said, and I repeat, one statement was both true and untrue.

What, may I ask, makes you think I was irritated?

I was right, wasn't I? You said:

Your arguments are counter-intuitive, irrational, inconsistent and illogical but you seem to be either oblivious or think none of the above are required to be persuasive. You have every right to do so but I can't debate the irrational, having to try irritates me.

So you're saying I'm irrational, and then saying that debating the irrational irritates you, ergo, debating with me irritates you. And you're debating me. Clearly it would be correct to conclude that you are, therefore, irritated.

Funny how you seem capable of applying the concepts of reading written communication even as you claim they can't be applied to reading the Constitution.

You don't sound like you find any of this "funny". Irritating, yes. Frustrating, possibly, but certainly not "funny".

I notice you've still yet to answer my earlier questions:

Are you arguing that 911 calls shouldn't be recorded at all? Not even for use as evidence in later criminal proceedings?

And if so:

Do we wait for the criminal to strike again before prosecuting? Is it fair to risk the safety of other people, to essentially "create" other victims before we act?.

I'll leave you to mull those over and get back to me.

You simply cannot read the constitution, or anything else, and expect to get the meaning absent some understanding of the background, history, and intent of the communication. You can get a meaning but based only on a text you can't even tell if a document is to be taken seriously or is a joke, if its a final version or merely a draft. Without knowing that the constitution was drafted to be the basis for the American legal system, that it was voted upon and accepted by the American people for that purpose, you don't even know that its the law, unless you happen to think that any document that purports to tell the federal government what it can and cannot do is the law just because its written? You seem to think you're making the argument that I'm unable and unqualified to "interpret" the constitution. What I see you doing is proving you don't know how to read.

If, as you say, the 1st amendment protects speech then the FCC is clearly unconstitutional as its sole purpose is to regulate the media. The NSA must likewise be unconstitutional as its sole purpose is to guard national secrets, to prevent speech on topics the government deems sensitive. Gag orders must be unconstitutional, confidentiality agreements must be unenforceable, copyright laws must be unconstitutional, and what passes for ethics enforcement among lawyers must be unconstitutional... If the 1st amendment protects all speech how is it that the government spends so much time and effort regulating speech? And with court approval?

And I'm sure the courts will back you up if I refuse to pay taxes because I intend to use the money to campaign for legalized drugs! Funding is speech. The First Amendment is on my side! Right?!

As for your use of the OED you seem to have the same difficulty reading dictionaries that you do reading the constitution. Yes, consent is agreement, and like consent agreement must be voluntary. The OED does not back you up.

And no, you did not give "plenty of examples where calling 911 in an emergency was not at all essential or urgent." To begin, if something is not "essential or urgent" it is not an emergency. Your OED definition of "imperative," however is right on point, though like the one on consent, you don't seem to understand it.

Speaking of oxymorons take another look at your "involuntary consent," there is no such thing; and, yes, the definition of consent does mean it has to be voluntary. You're on a site that spcializes in addressing political "framing" with an emphasis on reality vs misinformation and you don't understand that statements can be accurate but untrue? Let me try to explain it to you. Accurate information can be compiled arranged and presented in manners that communicate untrue concepts. In my statement "accurate" refers to constituent phrases and concepts, "untrue" refers to the overall concept being communicated. And it is quite possible, and common in politics, to have both simultaneously.

What, may I ask, makes you think I was irritated? It wasn't in my text. Funny how you seem capable of applying the concepts of reading written communication even as you claim they can't be applied to reading the Constitution.

I can't really debate with you since we don't live on the same planet. You will argue anything. Your arguments are counter-intuitive, irrational, inconsistent and illogical but you seem to be either oblivious or think none of the above are required to be persuasive. You have every right to do so but I can't debate the irrational, having to try irritates me.

Yeah, I knew about Nixon's healthcare reforms. Doesn't the birth of HMOs stem from his presidency? Not sure anyone would consider that a positive reform of the system, mind you.

One year is just the current iteration. To compare apples to apples (with the "24 years") you've got to at the very least say "17 years" (since Clinton tried), but I would peg it at a lot more years than that myself.

Touche. The number just stood out at me from the quote, and screamed for me to respond to it. Still, as I then went on to say, the overall sentiment that the use of reconciliation is justified because of the mandate the Democrats have is still sound, and I agreed with that. My point regarding the 24 years was simply a "framing" issue, but I see you've handled that aspect well.