[tomder55]

Robert Gibbs in a recent exchange with the press admitted that passing the public option in Obamacare is a nonstarter.

“There are some that are supportive of this,”..... “There isn't enough political support in the majority to get this through.”...
“The President took the Senate bill as the base and looks forward to discussing consensus ideas on Thursday”

So tomorrow's dog and pony show at Blair House is no more than political cover . The President wants to go into the 2010 campaign using the tired old line that the Republicans are the 'party of no' .

So even though there is not enough political support within his own party to pass a comprehensive health care bill ;he will blame Republicans for his own inabilty to lead the party.

This is not sitting well with the President's extreme base. Moonbat Adam Green, spokesman for the 'Progressive Change Campaign Committee' released the following response .
“The White House obviously has a loser mentality — but America rallies around winners. Polls show that in state after state, voters hate the Senate bill and overwhelmingly want a public option, even if passed with zero Republican votes. More than 50 Senate Democrats and 218 House Democrats were willing to vote for the public option before, and the only way to lose in reconciliation is if losers are leading the fight. That's why Democrats in Congress should ignore the White House and follow those like Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez who know that the public option is a political and policy winner.”

It doesn't get any better than that ;pointing out that the Schmuckster Charles Shumer is a party leader. (sorry being one of his constituents is a bitter pill)

The rank and file in Congress appear to be resigned to the fact that there will be no public option in any health care overhaul.

At Private Meeting Of House Dems, Barely A Mention Of Public Option | The Plum Line


The question remains ;will Madame Mimi Pelosi be able to twist enough arms to support legislation that doesn't include it ? I kind of doubt it.

[excon]

So even though there is not enough political support within his own party to pass a comprehensive health care bill ;he will blame Republicans for his own inabilty to lead the party.

Hello tom:

Not quite. He has a majority of his party, but not the 60 votes he needs. George W. Bush was able to pass massive legislation with no more Republican votes than Obama has... That's because he had some Democratic support, whereas Obama has NO Republican support.

Tiresome as it is, that means the Republicans are indeed the party of NO. So, if the Dems want it, they're going to have to do it under reconciliation. I'm OK with it, but I assume you abhor it.

Of course, you only abhor it, because YOU'RE not the ones doing it. I recall, your calling for an up or down vote on Bush's judicial appointments. That's reconciliation, no? When YOU do it it's cool, but when others do, it's the "nuclear option".

Ain't nothing changed since I been gone.

excon

[tomder55]

There is nothing wrong voting no when the legislation is wrong.

Of course, you only abhor it, because YOU'RE not the ones doing it. I recall, your calling for an up or down vote on Bush's judicial appointments. That's reconciliation, no? When YOU do it it's cool, but when others do, it's the "nuclear option".

Of course I could also say the Dems were against reconciliation before they were for it .

Except there is a difference as big as 'apples and oranges'. The nuclear option was an attempt to change fillibuster rules for judicial appointments . This was deemed necessary because in theory judicial fillibusters violate the Senate constitutional obligation to “advice and consent” the President on appointments made by the president.

Reconciliation has been around since the Democrat controlled Congress in 1974 changed the law to limit debate on budgetary matters (ie spending and revenue issues).

For the Dems to use reconciliation on the passing of sweeping social changes brought about by legislation ;as if it was just a budgettary matter is completely dishonest and in fact violates the conditions for it's use. That is why all the people mentioning reconcilitation admit that some fancy tap dancing and rewriting of the language of the bill will be needed to even minimally comply with the conditions for it's use.

[excon]

That is why all the people mentioning reconcilitation admit that some fancy tap dancing and rewriting of the language of the bill will be needed to even minimally comply with the conditions for it's use.

Hello again, tom:

ALL politicing is tap dancing! As long as it complies, even minimally, that'll work.

It remains to be seen, however, just what they'll put in. Not needing the 55th, or 56th, or 57th, etc. vote from conservative senators means they could actually put a public option in and make it law.

But, the insurance lobby pays them lots of blood money too...

excon

[tomder55]

Not needing the 55th, or 56th, or 57th, etc. vote from conservative senators means they could actually put a public option in and make it law.

My closing question is what is really relevant.
The reason I say this is because their easiest way of getting it done would be to take the Senate version of the bill as is and pass it in the House . But that would require the bare minimum coallition that Pelosi had when the House passed their version.

As you recall Rep Stupak led a pack of Dems who would not vote for it if gvt. Funded abortions were included;and there were many other Dems who would not vote unless some sort of public option was included.

Well if they vote on the Senate bill it will not pass in the House. With Murtha's death ; a few retirements ,Stupak's gang ,and the one Republican who voted for it saying he won't vote for it again... it will be difficult for Pelosi to get it done.

The debate in the Senate came down to the public option. They had to scrap it to get the 60 votes. Now they have 59 at best ;and it is unknown how many other Dems would bail out if the public option was included . Heck ;you may even need Biden's tiebreaker just to get a majority using reconcilliation..

Get where I'm going with this ? Pelosi doesn't have the votes to pass the Senate bill and the Senate will not pass the House version.

Will we get a bill passed ? Yes ;but it will be a face saving ;stripped of all contentious issues and contains only provisions that are broadly popular (as it should be) .
If there is a 'public option' included it will be one that is "triggered" by defined conditions.

[excon]

Will we get a bill passed ? Yes ;but it will be a face saving ;stripped of all contentious issues.

Hello again, tom:

Yer probably right. They ain't got no balls. But, if I were running things...

excon

[twinkiedooter]

Regardless how they dress this topic up it's not going to pass. Giving it a Dior ball gown with a diamond tiara is not going to change it one iota.

I think they should just drop the whole health care crap and get on to something else. I, for one, after a year of listening to this garbage would prefer that the "Their Majesties" of the government ensconced in Washington move onto something more worthwhile and urgent such as JOBS JOBS and where the blankity blank have all the jobs gone in America? Who cares about health care anyway? The way this country is going I think the most important topic should be how the blazes are we going to pay for food, clothing, housing when there are NO JOBS??

Trash the health care baloney for now and concentrate on something more germain such as the economy. Health care contiributes nothing to the overall economy getting stronger. So why are they spending so many untolled hours on a dead horse??

[tomder55]

Government doesn't create jobs except government jobs.They have no answer to this because they can't solve the fundamental question about what the government's role should be in the issue of jobs creation.

Nothing they are doing answers the fundamental problem ;that the government is spending money it doesn't have and has brought us to a point where their system or borrowing and spending is no longer sustainable .

[tomder55]

Then again ;Andy mcCarthy at NRO makes Excon's point that the Dems have nothing to lose by pushing through the most radical aspects of their plans ,and may just do that .

I hear Republicans getting giddy over the fact that “reconciliation,” if it comes to that, is a huge political loser. That’s the wrong way to look at it. The Democratic leadership has already internalized the inevitablility of taking its political lumps. That makes reconciliation truly scary. Since the Dems know they will have to ram this monstrosity through, they figure it might as well be as monstrous as they can get wavering Democrats to go along with. Clipping the leadership’s statist ambitions in order to peel off a few Republicans is not going to work. I’m glad Republicans have held firm, but let’s not be under any illusions about what that means. In the Democrat leadership, we are not dealing with conventional politicians for whom the goal of being reelected is paramount and will rein in their radicalism. They want socialized medicine and all it entails about government control even more than they want to win elections. After all, if the party of government transforms the relationship between the citizen and the state, its power over our lives will be vast even in those cycles when it is not in the majority. This is about power, and there is more to power than winning elections, especially if you’ve calculated that your opposition does not have the gumption to dismantle your ballooning welfare state.
Consequently, the next six weeks, like the next ten months, are going to be worse than we think. We’re wired to think that everyone plays by the ususal rules of politics — i.e. if the tide starts to change, the side against whom it has turned modifies its positions in order to stay viable in the next election. But what will happen here will be the opposite. You have a party with the numbers to do anything it puts its mind to, led by movement Leftitsts who see their window of opportunity is closing. We seem to expect them to moderate because that’s what everybody in their position does. But they won’t. They will put their heads down and go for as much transformation as they can get, figuring that once they get it, it will never be rolled back. The only question is whether there are enough Democrats who are conventional politicians and who care about being reelected, such that they will deny the leadership the numbers it needs. But I don’t think we should take much heart in this possibility. Those Democrats may well come to think they are going to lose anyway — that’s why so many of them are abandoning ship now. If that’s the case, their incentive will be to vote with the leadership.

Transformation - Andy McCarthy - The Corner on National Review Online

The question then becomes ;will the majority of the Dems be willing to march with the leadership over the cliff and sacrifice themselves for their ideology ?

[excon]

The question then becomes ;will the majority of the Dems be willing to march with the leadership over the cliff and sacrifice themselves for their ideology ?

Hello again, tom:

In my mind, the libs made it happen for congress in the first place, and if congress doesn't bow to their demands, it's over the cliff anyway. You, like the Wolverine, think it's curtains for them if they actually reform health care. I think it's curtains if they don't.

There is a belief among conservatives that the country is "center right". I don't subscribe to that belief.

In terms of sacrificing yourselves (and the Constitution) for an ideology, you did exactly that under Bush and Vice. You certainly don't call it that, however. You call it doing their jobs.

Interestingly enough, there are some people who think it's the job of congress to actually reform the way health care is delivered in this country. They call it doing their jobs.

excon

[Catsmine]

Interestingly enough, there are some people who think it's the job of congress to actually reform the way health care is delivered in this country. They call it doing their jobs.

excon

Which clause of which article of the Constitution says that? Does it say they can force you to buy insurance?

[excon]

Which clause of which article of the Constitution says that? Does it say they can force you to buy insurance?

Hello Cats:

Which article says the NSA can read ALL your email?? In fact, I think I can find an amendment that says exactly the opposite... But, I digress (or you did).

In any case, I can't find an article in the Constitution that gives the government the power to PREVENT you from buying something, yet they DO... As a dedicated right winger, I suspect you support that power.

So, wherever they get the power to tell you how NOT to spend your money, is the same place they can find the power to tell you how TO, in fact, spend your money. If they have the power to influence your personal spending habits, then they HAVE the power to influence your personal spending habits.

excon

[excon]

Hello again:

Cats DOES make an important point. In fact, Republicans won and are still winning the "talking points" debate, and Cats point is the talking point of the day. The Republicans STAY on point. They are VERY disciplined. The best points are simple phrases that are repeated over, and over, and over again. And, then even again. A good example of that is "government takeover", and oh yeah, don't forget "death panels". We have been HAMMERED to death with the phrase "government takeover". It's not true, of course. The bill isn't now, nor was it EVER a "government takeover". But truth isn't the point of the talking point war. Winning the talking point war is the ONLY point.

The Democrats LOST that war. Their bill is too complicated to be reduced down to understandable, simple talking points. Their leadership didn't even try. All they can say is, try it, you'll like it...

Don't be mislead. Winning the talking point war, has NOTHING whatsoever to do with whether the bill is good or bad. It simply means the people THINK it's bad because they believe the talking points. That's what happens when you lose the talking point war.

My point here is, the quality of the bill notwithstanding, the Democrats have shown an inability to lead. With a strong majority in BOTH houses, they failed to pass their presidents signature agenda. Republicans with smaller majorities, would NEVER let that happen to their president, and they certainly didn't.

The Democrats will be punished.

excon

[cdad]

Which clause of which article of the Constitution says that? Does it say they can force you to buy insurance?

Its called the commerce clause. You can read about it here.

Ref:

Commerce Clause Limitations on State Regulation

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Commerce Clause - Power To Regulate

[Catsmine]

Its called the commerce clause. You can read about it here.

Ref:

Commerce Clause Limitations on State Regulation

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Commerce Clause - Power To Regulate

So how does the power to regulate interstate commerce translate into forcing me to buy health insurance that is prohibited from being sold across state lines?

I'm so proud to have been promoted in Ex's book to "dedicated right winger," despite having voted Libertarian since Reagan.

[NeedKarma]

I'm so proud to have been promoted in Ex's book to "dedicated right winger," despite having voted Libertarian since Reagan.

We don't know how you voted, we can only see your posts here so I agree with Ex.

[Catsmine]

We don't know how you voted, we can only see your posts here so I agree with Ex.

True, and the only non-conservative viewpoints I've expressed are on social and religious issues. I'm just so proud to be on the same level as Speechlesstx and Tomder.

[NeedKarma]

True, and the only non-conservative viewpoints I've expressed are on social and religious issues. I'm just so proud to be on the same level as Speechlesstx and Tomder.

Good luck with that! :)

[Catsmine]

Good luck with that! :)

Thanks.

[NeedKarma]

It must be tough to reconcile their "religiousness" with the hatred they show in the political threads. That's the kind of stuff that reminds why I don't get involved with religion or far-right politics.