Sure The Health Bill Stinks, But Blame The Republicans

Ezra Klein peddles the latest Dem spin should the reconciliation door slam shut on eager Democratic health care reformers:

The thinkable has happened, and the Senate parliamentarian has ruled that the president must sign the health-care reform bill before the House and Senate can act on a reconciliation package.

In the Democrats' Senate Caucus meeting today, Kent Conrad apparently argued that this left the Democrats in an even stronger moral position. The reconciliation rider fixes unpopular elements of the health-care bill: the Nebraska deal, the Florida deal, the excise tax and so forth. If Republicans figure out some nuclear level of obstruction that could actually derail the reconciliation process, then they will effectively own the worst elements of the Senate bill, and Democrats can just spend their time hammering Republican obstructionism that has so lost touch with reality that they'd rather keep legislation they're against than let Democrats fix it. Or so goes the argument.

OK!  Democrats wanted to pass a good bill but Evil Republicans wouldn't let them.  That is why we see sixty members of the Dem caucus on record passing the December Senate bill, a majority of the House, all Democrats, ratifying it (if Nancy can work her dark magic), and President Obama signing it.

Some points to ponder:

1 - Hold your fire.  Conrad isn't really trying to persuade moderate, independent and uncertain voters with this patent BS; his target audience is nervous House Democrats, many of whom have a strong will to believe that passing some sort of bill makes sense.  Conrad is simply trying to jolly along their process of self-delusion and rationalization.

2 - The Democratic message machine has spent the last year failing to convince the Great Unwashed of the glories of their health care reform.  Are they really going to break through with this Blame-the-Republicans message?

3 - Why won't the Republicans just say "We all agree, the bill stinks - send us to Washington and we will fix this"?

It's Easter season - let's find out how many Democrats believe in miracles.

Comments

[pagar]

"this left the Democrats in an even stronger moral position"

IMO, one can not be a Democrat and hold a strong moral position. Nothing that they believe in supports morals in any way. They do not believe in protecting innocent children, they do not believe in defending America. The list goes on and on and on.

[Jane]

I posted this in the other thread.

I got back my computer but Firefox was missing. I downloaded it with the 3.6 version. When I went to download the HTML bar it said it was only available for older versions.

Anyone have any ideas on this?

[Jane]

Never mind. The very brilliant Janet fixed the problem in 2 seconds. (Now can you figure out my email server password?)

[Janet]

Amen pagar. and LUN is a new ploy by the Dems. via Instapundit....Evangelicals are afraid of the Tea Party libertarians. The Cizik guy is very sketchy and is very often the "evangelical" that is given a MSM platform. Don't trust him at all.

[centralcal]

Jane about Firefox 3.6

Dot had exactly the same problem - unable to install the html toolbar. I believe he went back to an earlier version.

I am being prompted to upgrade to FF 3.6 but said no, for now.

How did Janet overcome the toolbar problem?

[Captain Hate]

The thinkable has happened, and the Senate parliamentarian has ruled that the president must sign the health-care reform bill before the House and Senate can act on a reconciliation package.

By using the word "thinkable", does Ezra the douchetool mean that he agrees with what the parliamentarian ruled?

The Cizik guy is very sketchy and is very often the "evangelical" that is given a MSM platform.

Like Andi Sullivan is called a "conservative" on Tweety's show et al?

[Rob Crawford]

The Cizik guy is very sketchy and is very often the "evangelical" that is given a MSM platform. Don't trust him at all.

Heh. I thought that story rang false, but don't know enough about the Evangelical movement to pin it down. I particularly like the line about them being uncomfortable with the "incivility and name-calling". Um, compared to ANY random group on the left, the Tea Party protests have been paragons of decorum.

[centralcal]

Never mind, Jane. I saw Janet's reply to you by going to the other thread.

[steve sturm]

Klein's argument is similar to the Slaughter proposal: structure the vote in such a way that the Democrats can have their cake (Obamacare) and eat it too (deny that they're responsible).

The only problem with this is that it presumes the public is too stupid to realize what actually happened AND that the GOP won't run ads making it very clear what the Democrats did. In other words, the Democrats are looking at a distinction without a difference.

[Rick Ballard]

Rob,

You're comment was published by Reynolds. It's also exactly correct. This is astroturfing and pretty feeble astroturfing to boot.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

Ezra Klein: Bi-Polar Policy Wonk

One day he's a reasonable commentator asking questions of Republicans that have put forward health care reform proposals that actually do bend that pesky cost curve.

The next day he is crapping all over the party for things they never did.

Scuttle the journolist temple Ezra. It's ideal medicine.

[bgates]

One day he's a reasonable commentator

Which day was that?

[narciso]

Cizik is like Frum's New Majority, it wasn't new and it isn't a majority. They have a view point,but it has very little to do with the issue at hand. On the health care front, he is willing to take the king's danegeld, and ignores the strings attached, on health care
AGW, etc

[Appalled]

if the Democrats actually pass the Senate bill in the House, I agree the GOP is in a bit of a pickle. But it's solvable, with a reconciliation bill of their own that has the good GOP stuff, and eliminates most of the president's provisions.

But, despite Conrad, this is the Democrats absolutely worst nightmare. Because if the House does not pass this legislation (and it does not look that good for them), then the Democrats lose their "nasty Republicans are such obstructionists" argument.

[narciso]

Why does it seem that there is a law professor
cooking up rationales for terrorists to attack us, because they do, in the LUN

[Janet]

Another trend appearing in the MSM is couching liberal ideology that most Americans don't want, within something most Americans DO want....namely jobs. LUN again via Instapundit is the false green jobs meme. How going green will supposedly bring so many jobs.

Yesterday the WaPo had an article on how same sex marriage would bring more jobs in the wedding planning industry.

If they can't sell their ideas on their own merit, they try to trick people.

[Rob Crawford]

narciso -- Love this line from that piece:

"Although the United States has not ratified the protocols, we consider the prohibition to be customary law, binding on all nations."

Um, no. It doesn't work that way, Mr. International Law Expert. The US did not ratify those protocols, so they do not apply to us.

Now, why don't these lawyers spend as much time explaining why al'Qaeada is a literal out-law organization as they do contorting facts to make the US the villains? Who's paying... oh, wait... that's who..

[Jane]

So the president has announced he is postponing his vacation to Australia to get the bill passed.

[Extraneus]

From the RollCall link on the so-called ruling:

The Senate Parliamentarian’s Office was responding to questions posed by the Republican leadership. The answers were provided verbally, sources said.

Nothing in writing, just some verbal anonymous sources? Is that what everyone's hanging their hats on?

[caro]

Never mind, Jane. I saw Janet's reply to you by going to the other thread.

I thought Janet was a Luddite.

[Jack is Back!]

Since Tom has mentioned Easter, I think it is more like doing the Stations of the Cross versus the eventual resurrection. In a way, Pontius Pilate was like Louise Slaughter, in that he more or less "deemed" Jesus guilty versus actually trying him. I am sure Bart Stupak, being the good Catholic boy he is, can sympathize with St. Nancy as she helps Barry the Messaih carry his legislative cross of painful weight while wearing a crown of thorny parliamentary maneuvers. But who will be the two thieves flanking him on Calvary? Remember, one is remorseful and is forgiven (Kent Conrad?).

[narciso]

Steve Emerson, in one of his early go arounds back in 1983, "The American House of Saud" illustrated CSIS pro Saudi tilt, in that instance, how they among other things downplayed the prospect of a Shia revolt, it goes without saying what they misgauged about
Wahhabi extremism. A perusal of a similar post
September 11th report by Cordesman, revealed much of the same problems

[centralcal]

lol, caro. She still says she is a Luddite and credits her hubby for the tech savvy solution.

[Pofarmer]

I got back my computer but Firefox was missing. I downloaded it with the 3.6 version. When I went to download the HTML bar it said it was only available for older versions.

So, what was the solution, I just lost it, too.

I want my HTML editor back.

[Pofarmer]

I got back my computer but Firefox was missing. I downloaded it with the 3.6 version. When I went to download the HTML bar it said it was only available for older versions.

So, what was the solution, I just lost it, too.

I want my HTML editor back.

[narciso]

Also, Charles Blow never fails to dissapoint, in the LUN

[centralcal]

Pofarmer: Janet's fix is on the O'Keefe thread.

[PDinDetroit]

So the president has announced he is postponing his vacation to Australia to get the bill passed.

This speaks VOLUMES about how 2/3rds of our current government is in collusion together. History will show this administration to be the most corrupt ever.

I sure hope the Supremes are up to the challenge when it comes.

[MayBee]

The "fixes" are going to add cost and eliminate revenue.
Extending the Cornhusker kickback to all states- how much will that cost? And delaying the cadillac tax for unions (which also is a good demonstration that political pressure does alter how this reform is administered) will take expected money out.

I don't see how the "fixes" get passed, or help the Democrats.

[Pofarmer]

Damned typepad.

Jane, what did you do to get your html back? I just lost mine.

[J]

Just a question. If the dems are defeated in this healthcare goal, it is claimed that obama will be unable to pass anything else during his term, that the dems will be demoralized and unable to join together to get anything done and will be defeated in the November elections. If the opposite occurs, will that mean that the republicans (citizens included)will be demoralized, defeated and unable to achieve anything and will lose in November?

[narciso]

They are cooked either way, but like the frog in the simmering pot, so are we in the second
scenario, the impact of the taxes are fairly
immediate, they will linger through the year
hampering any recovery

[centralcal]

Po - Janet's html fix for Firefox is LUN

[Sue]

http://wolffiles.blogspot.com/>Dr. Wolf Barack's doctor cousin. Very interesting what he has on his blog. Something tells me they aren't close.

[Pofarmer]

that the dems will be demoralized and unable to join together to get anything done and will be defeated in the November elections

I think they'll get even loonier.

And, I think I got an HTML bug to work.

Cool.

[MayBee]

So Obama is delaying his trip to Asia, and Michelle and the girls are no longer going with him.

An error of his own making.

[Sue]

Democrats are going to be defeated in November whatever they do now with healthcare. Which is what bothers me. If they know they are going to lose, will they go ahead and fall on their metaphorical sword?

[centralcal]

MayBee - Michelle and the girls aren't going? I thought this was supposed to be their spring break vacation.

I wonder if the grumbling from the Dem caucus was the reason for the change in plans?

[Pofarmer]

I found a different add on from Firefox's site. 3.6 actually has some kinda cool features.

[centralcal]

Never mind, MayBee - Major Garrett, says that is the reason.

[centralcal]

Pofarmer - please share the cool features and where you found the add-on, before I allow the update.

[MayBee]

Yeah, ccal.

He tried to make Congress meet a schedule that suited him, and they got revenge.

[centralcal]

Oops, read too fast. Are you saying that the Firefox site has an html add-on after all?

[Pofarmer]

Ccal, well, it's got the add on thingy in the Tools menu, and you can manage your add on's from there. Maybe it was there before and I just never knew it. The toolbar I downloaded is bbcode. The number is 0.5.3.1. Now, when I type into the comment box, all I do is right click, and the dialogue box comes up and BBCode is at the top of it. Select through the menu, and, Voila, coded. So far I like it.

Better get to work.

[fdcol63]

For Dems, passing HCR is a long-term strategic victory, even if it means short-term tactical losses in 2010 and 2012.

Like SS and other entitlements, HCR will create more dependency on gov't services and on the Dems, thus helping to ensure votes for them.

[Ignatz]

--I thought that story rang false, but don't know enough about the Evangelical movement to pin it down.--

This evenagelical and every other evangelical I know has been saying for years the same darn thing the Tea Partiers are saying; I suspect many of the Tea Partiers ARE evangelicals.
And we have been used to working with libertarians for many years because even libertarians who are social liberals still share our disdain for Federal intervention in those issues, which puts them light years ahead of many RINOs.
I consider myself largely libertarian.

[Thomas Collins]

In a NY Times column (see LUN), David Brooks accuses both Dem and GOP "political partisans" of living in an "information cocoon." Imagine that. The man who lives in the Coastal/Beltway information lockbox accuses others of not looking beyond their cocoon.

[Ranger]

if the Democrats actually pass the Senate bill in the House, I agree the GOP is in a bit of a pickle...

Posted by: Appalled | March 12, 2010 at 08:52 AM

Ok, you are going to have to explain how, if the Dems in the House pass a bill that was sent over from the Senate with 60 Dem votes and no R votes, the Rs have a problem.

All the "nasty, toxic" stuff in the bill were put in as bribes to get the 60 Dem votes, and it is now the Republicans' fault its in there?

Please.

[Bernard Di]

"But it's solvable, with a reconciliation bill of their own that has the good GOP stuff, and eliminates most of the president's provisions."

Only if by "president's provisions" to eliminate you are including both the recon add-ons and the original Senate bill. If the Senate bill passes, the GOP must vote against the recon bill no matter what. There are no amount of adjustments in recon that can offset the problems with the original Senate bill. Any vote for recon basically saying the GOP agrees with the overall package.

If this all somehow passes, I believe the GOP must and will figure out a way to repeal or kill funding for it. Even if it takes to 2012 with majorities in Congress and winning the Presidency. The only thing on Obamacare that kicks in before 2012 is taxes and no so-called benefits. It is not up and running in full force the day the bill is signed.

People hated this healthcare bill 15 years ago under Clinton, they hated it 15 months ago when Obama brought it up, they hate it more now and will hate it even more as time goes on. The GOP must do what they can now to stop it and make the process as painful as possible for the Dems. Then in Nov and 2012 killing Obamacare must be part of the GOP platform. People care about their health. Making their healthcare worse at a higher cost will never be popular.

[narciso]

WE can't even get away from him, here, most
weekends. I mean he's a good pinata, on occasion, but we are just flooded with this
"Emperor's New Clothes" lingo, no, not the
Massa business again, The same goes for my
Dalton and Harvard educated paisan, Yglesias
or that other fellow originally from my neck
of the woods, Benen.

[Sue]

Politico is reporting that that parliamentarian did not say the senate bill had to be passed before they could try reconciliation. Since there is nothing in writing, I'm guessing it could go either way at this point.

[Danube of Thought]

Against the wisdom of Ezra Klein, consider weighing the views of Dem pollsters Caddell and Schoen.

[Porchlight]

But who will be the two thieves flanking him on Calvary? Remember, one is remorseful and is forgiven (Kent Conrad?).

JiB, since there can be only one true Messiah, I like to think of Barry as the unforgiven thief on the other side of Jesus' cross. The Dems just think they're in a passion play; in reality they're only carnival clowns.

[Jim Ryan]

Shikha Dalmia, via Boortz:

A sensible president would of course step in and provide some adult supervision to a wayward party hell-bent on jumping off this cliff. But the problem is that President Obama believes in his own messianism too deeply for that. His goal is not to remake his party as it could be but "remake this world as it should be." In his book Dreams From My Father Obama gives the distinct impression that his gifts are too great for the smallness of our political stage. He regrets not having been born during the civil rights era when the grandness of the cause would have measured up to the grandness of his ambition. He is in search of something big that will allow him to make his mark on the world as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King did. Hence, the defeat of ObamaCare would not just be par for the course in the rough-and-tumble world of politics for him. It would be sign of his ordinariness, his mortality, and that, to him, is unendurable.

But the rub is that even if ObamaCare passes, Democrats and President Obama will lose. Republicans have already vowed to make November a referendum on this bill and, by all auguries, Democrats are going to lose big time. The loss of one election if the larger cause succeeds wouldn't be a big deal. But this bill has little legitimacy and for years might be tied up in constitutional challenges against its individual mandate provision--not to mention the provisions that turn insurance companies into public utilities without due process. ObamaCare could well become President Obama's Iraq. Worst of all from the standpoint of his personal life story, it will exacerbate the crisis of the entitlement state, requiring someone else to step forward and clean up the fiscal mess he is creating.

Ironically, Obama is not only sowing the seeds for the destruction of his own legacy--but also for the creation of someone else's. Far from being the savior--he's the one who will be in need of saving.

[Janet]

Dittos to Ignatz @ 10:05

[Rob Crawford]

ObamaCare could well become President Obama's Iraq.

BS. Everyone agreed about Iraq until the left thought it was ripe to play politics. Plus, Iraq was a success.

ObamaCare is Obama's HillaryCare.

[windansea]

Posted by: Sue | March 12, 2010 at 10:28 AM

yeah read that, the source for that story is the Politco reporter who wrote it

Conrad, who serves on rules committee confirmed what we heard yesterday

just spin I think

[Sue]

wind,

I hope you are right. Somewhere I read that Obama is postponing his trip to Indo/Australia because they think they will have the votes and needs to be here. Not sure about that, I hope he is sticking around so when it fails he can say he gave his all, but everytime I think this thing has died, it resurrects itself.

[BobDenver]

This is weird -- yes, Obama is delaying his departure, but only from Thursday, 3/18 to Sunday, 3/21. What the hell good is that supposed to do?

My guess is that the delay means his family can't go with him. This is a twofer: the Dems stop complaining that he imposed a deadline on them based on his kids' spring break schedule, and he doesn't have to take his wife along.

[BobDenver]

This is weird -- yes, Obama is delaying his departure, but only from Thursday, 3/18 to Sunday, 3/21. What the hell good is that supposed to do?

My guess is that the delay means his family can't go with him. This is a twofer: the Dems stop complaining that he imposed a deadline on them based on his kids' spring break schedule, and he doesn't have to take his wife along.

[Clarice]

I think he's postponing it for three days because there is no real reason for the trip and people on the Hill were saying he's pressing this so it won't interfere with his(kids') vacation.

All this is song and dance to fool any remaining shoe clerks out there and Politico has lost all credibility today.

[MikeS]

Conrad, who serves on rules committee confirmed what we heard yesterday

My mind is mush on this, but I thought the words the Parliamentarian used is the reconciliation required a LAW to be reconciled. I assumed that meant it must be signed by the President. Or maybe it was someone else who said that?

[BobDenver]

That was weird.

[Danube of Thought]

What the parliamentarian was quoted as saying yesterday is what Conrad has been saying all along.

I wonder when the Dems will tumble to the fact that "we're very close to an agreement" is wearing a bit thin.

I posted a couple of items a half hour or so ago that have simply disappeared. I notice that a couple of troll posts have also vanished. Are we under a new world order?

[MayBee]

Clarice- I think you're right. Obama canceled his trip because the Dems on the Hill were mad at him for going.

First he travels the country selling "his plan" that Congress is actually writing. Then he called a bipartisan summit, acted as moderator, took credit for bringing everyone together, and still won't produce the legislative language he promised. Then he argued that this bill needs to pass to protect his presidency. Finally he set a date for Congress to pass it based on his vacation schedule.

I'm guessing it's all become a little too much for them and they let him know it.

[centralcal]

I agree with you MayBee and with Clarice.

[DebinNC]

Politico: "There is no written confirmation of the parliamentarian's guidance, Senate Republican aides said. It was relayed to them verbally, making it difficult to independently confirm what the parliamentarian said."

So, Wed. night unnamed WH and Cong. Dem elites met in a closed room (who knows where) to plot their recon/Slaughter strategies, and who's in there with them, giving advice and direction, but the Senate and House Parliamentarians (and likely staff) ...according to The Hill. Since Repubs were locked out, Boehner later tracked down one of the Parliamentarians, who reported one item of interest from the comfab, and now that's in doubt? How in the world was it appropriate for the "referees" to attend a wholly partisan, high pressure meeting at all? They've compromised themselves and their rulings by doing so. And if Boehner misinterpreted what he was told, a principled parliamentarian would have corrected the mistake himself yesterday as soon as it was reported.

[Jane]

Hey TC, if you see this will you send me an email? I lost my contact info in the crash.

[Jane]

[i]I think he's postponing it for three days because there is no real reason for the trip and people on the Hill were saying he's pressing this so it won't interfere with his(kids') vacation.[/i]

Me too, it's all Obama smoke and mirrors. Congress is getting resentful and this is a pat on the head.

Ignatz, JOM seems pretty reflective of the Tea Party movement to me. And we have evangelicals (I'm not sure I would call it that) and social libertarians throughout.

What I see is people who feel very strongly about their own beliefs and just as strongly about not imposing them on others.

[Clarice]

MayBee, remember on the Porkulus bill he insisted it had to be passed right now, then stuck it in a drawer while he went on vacation in Hawaii before returning to sign it.

His whole act is wearing thin on everyone.

[narciso]

This post election piece summarizes Cizik well, not your typical evangelical by a long shot

[MayBee]

Oh, that's right clarice!
Sherrod Brown had to fly in from his mother's wake for a midnight vote, then Obama and Michelle flew off to Chicago for a dinner out.

(ps. Is there some reason the Obama family never goes to Chicago anymore?)

[Thomas Collins]

OK, Jane, I'm going to send you an email now. But remember that your spam filter usually puts me in your spam folder along with the Viagra and Nigerian potentate emails, so you may have to go to it to get my contact info.

[Clarice]

Perhaps "President present" has a psychological problem with like actually signing into law things he demanded be passed..You think?

[narciso]

And a little unintentional humor from Howell Raines

[Ignatz]

--Perhaps "President present" has a psychological problem with like actually signing into law things he demanded be passed..You think?--

A little editing suggestion clarice:
Everything after "problem" is superfluous.

[Neo]

Comprehensive health care has been lost. If it fails, as appears possible, Democrats will face the brunt of the electorate’s reaction. If it passes, however, Democrats will face a far greater calamitous reaction at the polls.

This ain’t 1994 any more.
It has come down to a lose:lose-big proposition. Democrats are still angling for the lose-big side of this.
The choice is lose an election or alienate a generation of independents (who now outnumber either party).

[Sue]

Pelosi is reaffirming that the senate bill has to be passed in the House and signed by the president before reconciliation can begin.

[centralcal]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) today acknowledged that the Senate parliamentarian's ruling precludes the House from passing reconciliation fixes to health-care without first passing the Senate bill.

------

It is looking increasingly likely that Pelosi will employ the “Slaughter Rule,” a complex legislative maneuver that could allow the House to avoid a direct up-or-down vote on the Senate bill.

Per the Corner

[Neo]

"President present"

Notice how Obama's "greatest achievement" and greatest failures were inherited from Bush.
And now, the only big "new idea" Obama has will most likely send his party to electoral defeat if not oblivion.

[Clarice]

He's obviously too smart for that position. Yes, that must be it.

[Rick Ballard]

BOzo seems to think that because Bubba dodged the electoral bullet in '96, he will too in '12. He should take a hard look at Peanut's second term in order to gain an understanding of his probable future. Peanut had big majorities in the beginning, just like BOzo. Tip O'Neill became quite adept at giving Peanut the single finger salute early in the game due to the political pig ignorance which Peanut kept on continuous public display.

BOzo will be very fortunate if he is not treated worse by Pelosi's replacement (the Minority Leader rather than Speaker) than was Peanut by Tip. The up side for BOzo is that it will all be over by '12 at the latest.

[Thomas Collins]

Centralcal's link seems to confirm that the Senate bill has to be a constitutionally separate bill that has to be signed into law by Obama. Yet, I thought the purpose of the Slaughter Rule was to end up with one House Bill with the fixes already embedded. Perhaps the only reason for the Slaughter Rule now is to give Dems the fig leaf that they never voted for the Senate Bill. Dems better watch out that their fig leaf doesn't become a poison ivy leaf in November.

[MayBee]

Perhaps the only reason for the Slaughter Rule now is to give Dems the fig leaf that they never voted for the Senate Bill.

Yes, that's all it is.

[Jane]

Got it TC. I can't write back cause I've got some outlook bugs to fix.

[Ignatz]

While it has been historically very difficult to repeal entitlments, this one might possibly be different due to its unpopularity.
Consequently there is another unspoken and gigantic risk to the left, beyond the next election or two, if they succeed in passing this thing.
The presumption is it will be cemented in for eternity.
However if it proved as bad as predicted and were successfully repealed the still hot third rail of other entitlements would then be much more fair game.
And if they are, that's the end of the left as an electoral force for the foreseeable future.

[Sue]

Pelosi is thanking Obama for postponing his trip to Indonesia in order to be here when this "historic" bill becomes law. Because without his extraordinary leadership, this wouldn't be possible.

[Frau Freitag]

OT - Drudge's current photo of Obama looks familiar. He was separated at birth from Teray-za Heinz.

[Rick Ballard]

That cover might work in a dumber 'n dirt Blue Hell but it won't work at all in a competitive district. Ain't gonna happen, the Slaughter House is still Botoxic Kool-Aid and Rahm can't jump in the shower with everybody. The horse head in the bed and fish wrapped in newspaper left on the doorstep bit has to be getting a little old with the center of what remains of the Democrat Party.

[Sue]

She has ordered everyone to be in the House next week and not to expect to go home until the bill is passed. Nothing will be debated. Apparently they have to just sit there and look at her until they decide to cave. Not sure, am looking online to find her exact remarks.

[Clarice]

Rush says the vote will take place next week..(His source was in the Dem caucus meeting today)The Slaughter Rule will cram down the student aid bill, the Senate Bill and the following hoped for changes to the senate bill:
The Cornhusker and Fla giveaways will be stripped out, the Louisiana Purchase and Conn Hospital pay offs will remain, there will be no change in the Senate's abortion payment language.

There will be only one vote allowed--for the Slaughter cram down. If it passes Obama will sign the Senate bill.

[Thomas Collins]

MayBee's last post reminds me of a Peggy Lee song. See LUN.

Many Obama voters are now probably asking themselves the same question Peggy Lee posed in her tune.

Is That All There Is?

[Rob Crawford]

There will be only one vote allowed--for the Slaughter cram down. If it passes Obama will sign the Senate bill.

Which should lead the Supremes to immediately void the whole mess, since the bill will not have had the Constitutionally required vote in the House.

If it doesn't...

[Danube of Thought]

"Yet, I thought the purpose of the Slaughter Rule was to end up with one House Bill with the fixes already embedded."

That was my understanding as well; having said that, let me add that I don't understand it. It seems to me that what the house would be signing is thus a different bill from what the Senate has passed, so that before the prez can sign it it must be passed by the Senate, and while portions of it may be susceptible to the reconciliation process in the senate, it is crystal clear that much or most of it is not.

So what the hell are these people talking about?

[MayBee]

OT- but information about the California runaway Prius driver.

[Clarice]

It's too crazy for me, DoT.

Perhaps the cram down consists of three divisible bills voted on as a single package.

[Clarice]

Frau, Exactly right!

[Rick Ballard]

"She has ordered everyone to be in the House next week"

What a perfect opportunity for the 60-80 centrists who don't want the Kool-Aid to demonstrate their disdain by rotating absences in order to deprive Queen Botoxic of the quorum necessary for the mass suicide.

[Sue]

Hey MayBee, people are starting to ask questions about the California Prius guy. Your instincts are right on, once again.

[MayBee]

The fixes wouldn't be embedded. They would be separate from the Senate bill-- they would just be passed at the same time.
The underlying Senate bill would then be ready for Obama's signature. The Senate would then have to pass the fixes, apparently only needing 51 votes.