"Dems 'Almost Certain' to Bypass Conference"

[Clio the Leo]

Good! If you show that all you can do is try to obstruct, you eventually LOSE your opportunity to contribute anything. .... "NO DEBATE FOR YOU!"

Dems "Almost Certain" to Bypass Conference

Now that both the House and Senate have passed health care reform bills, all Democrats have to do is work out a compromise between the two versions. And it appears they’re not about to let the Republicans gum up the works again.

According to a pair of senior Capitol Hill staffers, one from each chamber, House and Senate Democrats are “almost certain” to negotiate informally rather than convene a formal conference committee. Doing so would allow Demorats to avoid a series of procedural steps--not least among them, a series of special motions in the Senate, each requiring a vote with full debate--that Republicans could use to stall deliberations, just as they did in November and December.

“There will almost certainly be full negotiations but no formal conference,” the House staffer says. “There are too many procedural hurdles to go the formal conference route in the Senate.”

One reason Democrats expect Republicans to keep trying procedural delays is that the Republicans have signaled their intent to do so. On Christmas Eve, when the Senate passed its bill, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell memorably vowed in a floor speech that “This fight isn't over. My colleagues and I will work to stop this bill from becoming law."

“I think the Republicans have made our decision for us," the Senate staffer says. "It’s time for a little ping-pong.”

<snip>

Yes, Republicans are sure to complain that they're being excluded from deliberations. But given their repeated efforts to block not just reform but even mere votes on reform, it's not clear why Democrats are obligated to include them in discussions anymore.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/exclusive-dems-almost-certain-bypass-conference

[DJ13]

1. Translation: Ram (Rahm?) through a crappy bill without trying to improve it

[DrToast]

3. Can you at least pretend to read the article?

[DJ13]

4. Will reading it result in a better bill than the Senate version?

[DrToast]

8. Try it and find out

[onpatrol98]

42. Nope

[mzmolly]

5. I dunno. I think we may get ourselves a strong public option?

;)

[Cha]

6. You're way off base as usual.

[DJ13]

15. Ah, the voice of reason

lol

[Cha]

18. Most people are compared to

the knee jerking around here.

[DJ13]

20. I prefer a few jerks trying to discern the truth

over people blindly accepting the crap they're fed and believing its chocolate.

Theres nothing wrong with skepticism, I would have thought we had learned that lesson after the last 8 years of being fed crap.

[Cha]

25. Yeah, I know you prefer jerks.

[DJ13]

28. You're still my favorite

[Cha]

29. Yeah, I can tell.

[treestar]

40. Knee jerking is blind also

It only appears to involve action

[HughMoran]

22. Ignored justifying their desire to remain on such status - again?

Some people are only here to shiv anybody who isn't grim and beyond hope.

[SpartanDem]

31. You'd understand that a formal conference isn't needed

and they can negotiate amendments informally if you more concerned about being informed than providing snark.

[RoadRage]

38. Ah.. so you think the Republicans will try to help "Improve" this bill?

I'm fairly certain that they're a large reason that this bill is as ugly as it currently is.. but what do I know? Frankly, I want the money grubbing bastards as far away from the final product as possible.

[Telly Savalas]

47. So you're arguing that getting the Republicans involved will improve the bill.

Because the only tangible difference between reconciling the bills through a formal conference process versus the informal one being pursued is that the former will involve Republicans whereas the latter won't.

[quiet.american]

2. You go, Dems! The less we see of Mitch's quivering chin, the better! Go! nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

7. Yeah... this just kind of makes me feel slimy. Can't put my finger on why.

It just does.

[Clio the Leo]

10. 'cause you're........

..... naturally skeptical? ........ about everything. :)

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. Wellllll....

I don't like our side riding roughshod through the minefield it takes to pass good legislation any more than I would like their side doing it.

I wanna keep a strong majority as long as possible. I'm afraid this might backfire.

And I'm not skeptical about everything, but a lot of things. About that I will not lie.

[Clio the Leo]

17. lol....

.... I'm not sure I'd characterize pushing through a bill that is five months late to avoid MORE GOP stall tactics "riding roughshod." ;)

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. How is it five months late? Whose schedule says so?

Look, I know you want this done by SOTU, but deadlines for legislation don't fly in my airspace. I could care less if President Obama gets the opportunity to stand before both houses of Congress to say "We did it!". That's not what is important to me. What is important to me is that we get the best legislation possible, with the least need for tweaking it after the fact. I would rather he call a joint session of Congress in the future to announce something nearly perfect than to begin the SOTU talking about what is merely "acceptable".

[Clio the Leo]

26. The bill has taken WAY longer than expected ....

.... is the point. The Dems aren't ramming anything through. Unless you feel that the GOP might have something worthwhile to offer (see, I can do hyperbole too!) then I'm afraid I dont understand your concern.

Voters who are in favor of the bill would love for it to be "rammed through." Those who are opposed to it are going to be opposed to it whether it's passed next week or next year. Anyone who NOW claims outrage that the Dems are "ramming it though" after ALL of this delay is grasping at straws and would complain anyway.

I wouldn't worry about what they think.

[cherokeeprogressive]

32. My "concern" is that some consider it more important to have this in place for PO's SOTU than

anything else.

This bullshit about "pass it now, fix it later" pre-supposes the fact that we'll control one or both houses for long enough to make that happen. Take some time, and pass something MORE acceptable to MORE people.

I'm tired of politics and disgusted with the notion that "they did it, why can't we?".

That, to me, is NOT change.

That you "wouldn't worry about what they think" puts you solidly in the "us against them" crowd, and the more of that we see the wider the divide will get, until someday we WILL actually have a "hot" civil war.

I don't want that. People like you who "don't care" and "wouldn't worry" do nothing but drive us to that point, just as those on the other side who show the same obstinance do.

Ram it through and pay the consequences.

[Clio the Leo]

37. I doubt there's a single one of us who cares if it's done before the speech or after...

.... but the bill has brought Congress to almost a halt and other things aren't getting done because of the GOP's stall tactics. I'm tired of it. There's no time for "what if's" and bemoaning the past wont accomplish anything.

Get the bill signed and let's move on to the next thing.

[Cha]

9. They're always crying wolf so no one

would ever know if they had something to whine about.

[smalll]

11. Interesting. Does this mean they can informally bring back a public option,

such that we will need only 51, rather than 60, votes in the Senate to pass it?

It almost sounds that way. Am I getting my hopes up?

[Clio the Leo]

14. I'm not clear on how this would involve cloture on the final vote...

.... but I DOUBT that it would eliminate the need for it. Anything that requires Lieberman's vote will not contain the PO. Everything I've read indicates the final bill will very closely resemble the senate version.

I would not get my hopes up.

[Pirate Smile]

19. They will still need 60 to get to the final vote in the Senate. Sorry.

I wish they didn't need to but they do.

[karynnj]

45. No, there will still be a cloture vote to bring the final bill to a vote

[OHdem10]

12. Pass a "crappy bill" win the battle and lose the war.

Prepare for more lost seats in 2010.

Since this is a Republican Bill, on second thought,
it really does not matter. Too bad, the Public
voted for a Democratic Bill when they put Dems in
charge in the last election.

They are simply avoiding Democratic Fights and the
possiblity of it not passing.

[onpatrol98]

43. Victory Laps

This is an ugly bill. Too ugly to be a democratic bill. I agree. But, since democrats seem intent on passing it, I think we have to own this one. Not only intent on passing it...but also bragging about it, and proclaiming political losses if they don't pass it. When this thing passes, there will be victory laps in Washington by democratic politicians. Like it or not, this is a bill our politicians want to own and seem to be truly proud of. This baby took a year to hatch.

The adage, "You break it, You buy it"...is surely to be the refrain. I didn't think much was left after Bush Jr. to break.

[levander]

48. Awesome post....

Thanks patrol, needed a good laugh...

[Hekate]

13. It's about time, since the Repubs have said in plain English that their only goal is to squelch this

It takes two entities to be "bipartisan" and right now one of them wants to be able to call the failure of HCR "Obama's Waterloo." Well, screw them.

It's enough of a job just getting the broad coalition of Democrats to agree -- and since the Repubs will vote in a bloc, I'd rather see the focus be strictly on fulfilling Democratic promises and moving this along briskly.

If this is indeed what the leadership is going to do, I think they'll come out with a very good bill after all.

Hekate

KnR :thumbsup:

[varelse]

23. Of course the Republicans will grumble a bit now... big deal

It's nothing compared to the crowing they'll be doing in 2010 when they can brag about having absolutely nothing to do with the mandatory purchase of health insurance and the taxing of health benefits.

[pscot]

24. Pingpong

No more debate. Pass the damned thing and get it to the President.

[Clio the Leo]

27. So we can move on to the next thing....

.... exactly.

[davidpdx]

30. I think skipping the procedural votes is probably a good thing

the Republicans are going to use their talking point no matter what. I would just hope that we see some improvement to the bill before it's voted on for the last time.

[burning rain]

33. Really, why does anyone expect this to be a problem?

The House will predictably defer to the Senate in conference, as usually it does. Ping-pong is a less apt analogy, than one side simply having the upper hand, and the other side accepting it.

[mstinamotorcity]

34. This Health care bill

is not finished.Yes it must be conferenced. Now if they are trying to do it in a subtle way it is alright with me.But as far as anyone wondering about this bill it is not only a democratic bill even though the repugs are not going to vote for it they have added amendments and have put things that they wanted in the bill or things that they did not want in the bill. So all that talk about Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid taking the bill and going behind closed door is a bunch os s--t.Everyone needs to stop listening to talking points from pundits and wait for the final outcome.Yes like everyone else i hear them talking and i see excepts from the current status of the bill,and yet i know it is still being framed.Everything that is in the bill will not please everyone.The health care bill will be used as a tool for election campaigns.Repugs are going to point out what amendments they put in the bill to claim victory or defeat even if it means bashing one of their own(i.e. the death panels).They will blatantly say they put this there so that this couldn't be done or they took this out for the good of the American people.Make no mistake it will be a patriotic dig.Because they know that is the key to their rhetoric.It is always about country.Funny how they act like they are the only ones in the country.

[old mark]

35. Good. Evidently even Dems in congress are capable of learning. nt.

[cyclezealot]

36. And the blue dogs will be stand in's for the Goppers..

If not , there will be no agreement... Too bad the Democrats did not realize from the Get go, the GOppers would be anything but obstructionist.. If they had, we'd have a stronger bill...

[freddie mertz]

39. One more step to the apocalypse of 2010?

The bill sucks and if it passes in the current Senate form, they will hang us with it.

[treestar]

41. The Republicans got their chance at bipartisanship

They deserve to be ignored for the next entire year.

[TheKentuckian]

44. But they aren't really

Lieberman, Nelson, Conrad, and friends will make sure their concerns are noted and incorporated just as they have done all along.

[jenmito]

46. K&R. Hopefully this will kill the Repubs.' chances to stall this any further.

I just hope the Conservadems are willing to "play ball." ;)