I predict with confidence that reconciliation will not be used. We should lower our expectations

[Indigent]

Some might think that resorting to the "reconciliation" process would give us a good bill with a strong public option. This belief is unfounded.

If Reconciliation is used, we don't get a bill, but pieces of one. Many provisions in the final bill will not meet the reconciliation requirements. President Obama does not want to pass a bill with significant portions of it thrown out.


Even if the public option is found to meet those requirements (and we're not clear it will at this point), we will be left with something similar to a car with no seats and breaks, or a car with no transmission and wheels, or any other combination of parts.


And everything stated above doesn't even address the fact that President Obama ran as and still is a uniter, not a divider. He said in his current speech that the time for "blickering" is over. I think we should be combative; but my goal here is to predict, not suggest.

It's not happening.

[Mojambo]

1. For me to get my expectations much lower would require a big ass shovel. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

2. It'll be funny watching DUers fall for you.

[dionysus]

16. true dat.

[jgraz]

3. No, we should raise our expectations

And if they're not met, we should be in the fucking streets.

[elocs]

12. If we're so belligerent now, why did Dems cede the town hall meetings to the freepers all summer?

It seems like this past summer that the Republicans drew up and carried out their battle plans while the Democrats went on vacation. I have a hard time envisioning masses of pro-heathcare reform supporters taking to the streets in great numbers, but I would love to be wrong about that.

[jgraz]

14. The Repug disruptors were recruited and well-funded by Corporate America

The left doesn't have its own news network or its own collection of multi-billion-dollar companies to force us to attend rallies. We're always going to be at a disadvantage because we're the ones fighting against entrenched interests.

The problem is we had our activist victory last November -- at least we thought we did. Having worked our asses off to elect Democrats, we're now faced with fighting against those same elected officials to make our voices heard.

[elocs]

15. So the semim intelligent/literate knuckle-draggers are more disciplined in their methods

and better organized than the supporters of healthcare reform? They could actually better find out when and where the town hall meetings would take place and physically show up? Evidently it was important to them. Why wasn't it equally important to those who support healthcare reform? Did those of us on the left really think the battle was won once and for all with the election last fall?

[jgraz]

22. No, their corporate masters are more organized and have almost infinite resources.

Nobody thought the battle was over in November. In fact, I posted that night that the fight has just started. If we made a mistake, it's in not anticipating how quickly and completely our new "leaders" would capitulate.

[elocs]

23. Well the Republicans were certainly on top of their battle plan against healthcare reform.

I heard on NPR this morning how some Democrats were not happy with what they perceived as Obama's hands-off attitude toward healthcare reform earlier this summer. It's like the ship was simply pushed out to set sail and meanwhile the Republicans gathered their navy to fire upon it.

If the Republicans are more organized about this battle and have infinite resources, then how did they manage to so effectively piss away the election last fall to a well organized, motivated, and well funded Obama election machine?

[grantcart]

4. the process can be tedious but the bill can be passed in parts

Since the budget has been passed, as long as there are no new expenditures then reconciliation will work.


You have overlooked another major point. The Health Care bill does not need 60 votes. We already have the 50 votes that are necessary to pass the legislation.

Now all that is standing in the way of passage is to invoke cloture and the Republicans have to get 41 votes to maintain a filibuster.

There may be some Democrats like Landrieu and Lieberman who will vote against the bill. It is quite another thing for them to filibuster against a vote for the bill. Crossing the aisle and helping the other caucus win an important battle on a procedural basis is much more unlikely. There will be tremendous pressure on the caucus for them to enable the Senate to vote - up or down - on the Health Bill. If they vote for a filibuster they are likely to lose any standing they have as a committee chairman or even choice committee assignments.

Also you underestimate the power of the President to twist arms and persuade on important votes.

There are probably 2-3 Republican Senators who would be willing to vote against filibuster for an assurance that they Democrats would not compete against them in the next election in earnest.

Right now the numbers are in the President's favor and it is the Republicans who have to find a Democrat to help them maintain a filibuster against the most important Democratic Legislation in 40 years.

[bbinacan]

5. I fear you are right.

Welcome to DU. :toast:

[Clio the Leo]

6. lol, which is why, last spring, he made it possible to pass a bill via reconciliation.

(by including such language in HIS budget)

[jbnow]

25. Do you have a link for that? Can't believe we all missed such a big

factor (and I mean a big 'we', not just posters here)

What language was included? The reconciliation process is mired in rules...mostly Senator Bryd's rules. (When sections are stripped out and the bill shredded it is called a Byrd bath)

I'd love it if you are actually correct and it's just no one read the whole budget. Would be a sweet thing...

But a link please

[ProSense]

7. Rubbish

Not only will it be strong, it will be intact.

[Marsala]

8. We could get the public option with 60 votes for closure

It's unlikely that any Democrat would vote against closure for the health care bill, even if they won't actually vote for the bill itself.

[Inuca]

17. Unfortunately I do not think this is true

Of course I hope I am wrong and you are right, we shall see...

[WeDidIt]

20. One member of the Caucus would

Joe Lieberman

[quakerboy]

9. If I lower my expectations any more

Then I might as well board myself in my apartment now and have a standoff with police. Don't come in, or I will hit myself in the head with this claw hammer. You'll never take me without brain trauma, coppers!!

At this point, I feel that my most realistic hope is that enough Dem's will refuse to fold, nothing will pass, and Republicans will continue to mark themselves as obstructionists, and we will dodge the Baucus bullet to the heart of the democratic party. There's always the off chance that Murphy's law will kick in in a major way on the right wing, and 39 Republican senators and 21 "wholly owned" Democratic senators will hit the wrong button and accidentally pass a single payer system, but I don't think that's realistic hope.

Its time to raise expectations. I expect Obama to succeed in passing a strong public option, a real firecracker of a bill, even if he has to wait until after the next elections sweep some obstructionists out of the way to get it done.

[Cha]

10. What a lame ass suggestion.

Fail.

[DrToast]

11. Welcome to DU, Sen. Conrad!

Now shut yer pie hole!

[elocs]

13. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior,

and that would seem to be true of what we can expect from our Democratic representatives in Congress. The White House seems to be good at words, but doesn't like to take off the gloves and do what needs to be done. Real and effective heathcare reform is what will define this administration and without it there won't be much else to brag about. If this cannot be done now I have no idea when it will be done.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. Maybe it's not our expectations we need to raise...

...but our voices.

[WeDidIt]

19. Welcome to DU

I predict you're wrong.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. What we should lower is the boom- on the corrupt Congress

and the first step is to lower contributions and cease all moderation in speaking about these bought off crooks.
And it was GW Bush who said "I'm a uniter not a divider". It is a message all politicians 'run on'. They all claim to be for all the people. But they never are. Was Bush a uniter?

[RDANGELO]

24. You are talking about the rules of the Senate here.

It only takes 51 votes to change any rule. It all depends on how far the progressives in the Senate are willing to go. They will take a lot of criticism for it, but it may be the only way they can get an effective bill that doesn't alienate a lot of people. If you don't have a public option, the premiums are going to go through the roof, and all these people paying higher premiums are going to be mad at the Democrats and Obama. In the long run, for different reasons, they would be better off going the 51 route.