White House hints Obama will offer defense of reconciliation strategy

[babylonsister]

White House hints Obama will offer defense of reconciliation strategy
By Sam Youngman - 03/01/10 04:35 PM ET


President Barack Obama this week will defend a controversial legislative maneuver to pass healthcare reform, the White House hinted Monday.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama will make an announcement, likely on Wednesday, that will deal with “both process and policy” on healthcare reform.

Gibbs and other top White House aides have been hinting for days that Obama will back the use of budget reconciliation rules on healthcare reform. The rules would allow the Senate to pass aspects of healthcare reform related to the federal budget with 51 votes instead of the 60 necessary to defeat a filibuster.

Democrats are contemplating having the House approve the Senate-passed version of the healthcare reform. The House would then pass a separate piece of legislation that would make fixes to Senate healthcare bill. The Senate would also pass the package of fixes, but under budget reconciliation rules.

The White House has been signaling it can support budget reconciliation rules for days, beginning in the lead-up to last week's bipartisan healthcare summit at the Blair House.

more...

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/84289-white-house-signals-presidential-defense-of-reconciliation

[demosincebirth]

1. Whats there to defend? just do it!!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. Unfortunately, Professor Obama is apparently going to have to bypass the media "filter" again

and teach people how the Republicans are lying scum and that they are continuously lying about and misrepresenting how our democratic system- in this case Congress- actually works and that there is NOTHING illegal, unconstitutional, or even "radical" about using procedures such as reconciliation to pass certain types of legislation.
I hope he points out that there would be no need to consider something like reconciliation, which, once again, is NOT illegal, unconstitutional, and/or "radical", if the Republicans would just agree to hold a straight "up or down vote" on the legislation (like the ones THEY used to champion when they were in the majority) instead of simply preventing it from coming to the floor for a vote.

After all, if the legislation is really so "bad" and the Republicans are on the "right" side of the issue, then why should the Republicans worry so much about holding a good, honest vote on the legislation and let the chips fall where they may? :shrug: Of course, there really is no need to ask such a question as the answer is fairly obvious: they are simply full of s**t and they know that, if given a chance, HCR WILL pass and that once people can see the benefits thereof, there will be NO chance of repealing the legislation and passage of HCR will give the Democrats a HUGE victory and electoral "shot in the arm"

[demosincebirth]

9. Many years ago there were republicans you could work

with on controversial legislation, but now a days it won't happen. Best way is to legislate and ignore the republicans. Piss on 'em!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. At this point, unfortunately, I have to agree with you

There do not seem to be any Republicans left whom are willing to work with Democrats or at least none whose desire for genuine bipartisanship is strong enough to transcend their apparent fear of the "teabagger" crowd. Even Snowe, despite her bipartisan "tendencies" is apparently too cowed by either the "teabaggers" or leadership to be willing to cross the aisle to support a genuine bipartisanship effort towards HCR even WITHOUT a public option. What is even worse is that the Republicans seemed to have staked their electoral prospects on obstructing any and everything that President Obama and the Democrats are proposing- and it just might help them regain a majority (or increased minority) in the November midterm elections. :puke:

[demosincebirth]

13. ...and again, it could back fire,.. which I am hoping for.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

14. I am hoping it does too

I am hoping that their obstructionism doesn't "pay" them the electoral dividends they seem to be hoping for and I remain unconvinced that 2010 is going to be a 1994-redux, mostly because the Republican Party is, by and large, still adrift and haven't quite recovered from 2006/2008 based on their consistently low(er) approval ratings and lack of leadership. President Obama and the Democratic Party really just need to keep everybody mobilized and involved to prevent a disaster. Fortunately, there is a simple way to do that- by getting legislation passed utilizing whatever constitutional means are available with or without Republican support. I just hope that they actually start getting some things done already! I have been rather impressed with how President Obama and the Democratic Party in general have started toughening up a bit since the Massachusetts election. The big test is whether or not things start to actually get passed (in the Senate).

[niceypoo]

11. Agree

They need to stop playing games with the minority and just fucking do it.

[depakid]

3. Here's your "defense" Republicans 14, Democrats 5

:think:

[flpoljunkie]

4. “Republicans could decide not to filibuster..." Ain't gonna happen, Gibbs!

“Republicans could decide not to filibuster, and that would be one way (to approve healthcare legislation),” Gibbs said.

[Mass]

6. He knows. He was answering to a question on how to do it without passing in force.

This is where the quote comes from. It was clear when he spoke he did not consider this as a plausible alternative, just an answer to the question asked.

[LiberalFighter]

5. I wouldn't provide anything on this.

Just make a statement that "They will do the right thing."

[ProgressiveEconomist]

7. I hope Obama points out that a Senate majority is 51 when Rs outnumber Ds and 60

60 votes when Democrats outnumber Republicans.

He could use the same graphics Rachel Maddow has shown several times to demostrate the spike in filibusters whenever Rs are in the minority and the spike in reconciliation votes whenever Rs are in the majority.

[LiberalFighter]

8. I would do that. Make clear to the Democrats the definition of majority in private.

And insert the fact that the Democrats are the majority party once in a while in public.

[tekisui]

10. This is what drives me NUTS!

The WH "hints" at a "defense" of reconciliation "strategy"?

The headline should be "WH strongly supports passage of Health Care Bill." No hinting, no defensive position. In the affirmative and directly, the WH should support whatever means necessary to pass what the people want over the obstructionist Republicans.