Dud Dem celebrations premature
Dionysus
HEAD: It�s Not Over
SUB-HEAD: Health-care legislation could still fail in the House.
By Ramesh Ponnuru
Democrats are doing a victory lap. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says
that with Senate passage of the Reid bill, �Health-care reform is now a
matter of when.� The press is doing its best to convey the impression that
Republicans are throwing in the towel. Pundits have moved on to arguing what
the opponents of the health legislation did wrong.
But the Democratic celebrations are premature, as Republican despair would
be. This battle isn�t over, and opponents of the legislation could still
win.
Throughout the debate, most people have assumed that if the legislation died
it would be in the Senate. The assumption was understandable: The Senate is
traditionally the place where legislation dies, where minority parties and
sometimes individuals can block action. The House, on the other hand, is
where party discipline is supposed to make it possible to enact nearly
anything the majority party wants.
What people are forgetting is how narrow the margin in the House was the
last time around. Speaker Pelosi won the vote for her version of health-care
reform by 220 to 215. If three votes had switched, the opposition would have
won 218 to 217.
Why would any of the 215 no votes switch to yes? Three possible reasons come
to mind. First, some congressmen may think that the bill has improved:
Perhaps a few Blue Dog Democrats will be pleased, for example, by the
abandonment of the public option. Second, they may face more pressure from
President Obama and Speaker Pelosi. But presumably the Democrats who voted
no were already under a lot of pressure to keep the bill from dying the last
time the House voted on it. Having said no earlier, they can probably say no
again. (I�m assuming that Pelosi did not have many potential yes votes in
reserve.) Third, they may face pressure from voters in their districts to
vote for the bill. But this seems unlikely: I haven�t heard of a single
congressman who voted no and now regrets it, and the polls do not suggest
that a no vote carries electoral risks.
Now consider some of the reasons a few of the 220 yes votes might switch to
no. My guess is that Reps. Bart Stupak (D., Mich.) and Joseph Cao (R., La.)
will switch to no because the Senate bill is more abortion-friendly. Some
other Democrats might come along with Stupak. Not many progressives will
vote against the bill because it lacks a public option. Most of those who
said they would were bluffing. But it wouldn�t take many of them to have an
impact. If Stupak, Cao, and one progressive flip, and nobody flips Pelosi�s
way, she loses the vote. Other congressmen may reconsider their support
because the tide of public opinion is running against it.
So on the one hand Democrats gain Blue Dog votes because of the dropping of
the public option, and on the other they lose votes because of abortion,
public opinion, and, um, the dropping of the public option. Of course it is
impossible to predict that the opposition will net the three required votes.
But the possibility can�t be ruled out, either.
If health-care legislation ends up dying in the House, the 60 Senate votes
for it will end up having hurt the Democrats by pushing the issue into 2010
and thus closer to the elections. (If it had died in the Senate, liberals
also would have been able to blame it on that body�s undemocratic features.
It will be harder to spin a repudiation in the House.) The Senate has made
the stakes higher. It hasn�t made the outcome certain.
*****************
Guy Fawkes?
Comparing what the Democrats in Congress are doing to making sausage is an
insult to sausage makers."--Sen. John Barrasso (R), NV
Merry Christmas.
No Surrender!
Dionysus
1-20-2013
Let's not forget the all important seat that Ted Kennedy once filled.
That seat is currently filled by a demmie puppet from Massachusetts.
Massachusetts voters will choose the new Senator on January 19.
Surprisingly, republican candidate Scott Brown is currently ahead in the
polls.
If Scott Brown wins on January 19, ALL bets are off regarding the
ObamaCare fiasco!
Let's send Scott Brown to the US Senate on January 19!!!!!
http://www.brownforussenate.com/
Trident
>
> > SUB-HEAD: Health-care legislation could still fail in the House.
> > By Ramesh Ponnuru
>
> > Democrats are doing a victory lap. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs
> > now a matter of when.” The press is doing its best to convey the
> > impression that Republicans are throwing in the towel. Pundits have
> > moved on to arguing what the opponents of the health legislation did wrong.
>
> > But the Democratic celebrations are premature, as Republican despair
> > still win.
>
> > Throughout the debate, most people have assumed that if the legislation
> > died it would be in the Senate. The assumption was understandable: The
> > Senate is traditionally the place where legislation dies, where minority
> > parties and sometimes individuals can block action. The House, on the
> > other hand, is where party discipline is supposed to make it possible to
> > enact nearly anything the majority party wants.
>
> > What people are forgetting is how narrow the margin in the House was the
> > last time around. Speaker Pelosi won the vote for her version of
> > health-care reform by 220 to 215. If three votes had switched, the
> > opposition would have won 218 to 217.
>
> > Why would any of the 215 no votes switch to yes? Three possible reasons
> > come to mind. First, some congressmen may think that the bill has
> > improved: Perhaps a few Blue Dog Democrats will be pleased, for example,
> > by the abandonment of the public option. Second, they may face more
> > pressure from President Obama and Speaker Pelosi. But presumably the
> > Democrats who voted no were already under a lot of pressure to keep the
> > bill from dying the last time the House voted on it. Having said no
> > not have many potential yes votes in reserve.) Third, they may face
> > pressure from voters in their districts to vote for the bill. But this
> > now regrets it, and the polls do not suggest that a no vote carries
> > electoral risks.
>
> > Now consider some of the reasons a few of the 220 yes votes might switch
> > to no. My guess is that Reps. Bart Stupak (D., Mich.) and Joseph Cao
> > (R., La.) will switch to no because the Senate bill is more
> > abortion-friendly. Some other Democrats might come along with Stupak.
> > Not many progressives will vote against the bill because it lacks a
> > public option. Most of those who said they would were bluffing. But it
> > progressive flip, and nobody flips Pelosi’s way, she loses the vote.
> > Other congressmen may reconsider their support because the tide of
> > public opinion is running against it.
>
> > So on the one hand Democrats gain Blue Dog votes because of the dropping
> > of the public option, and on the other they lose votes because of
> > abortion, public opinion, and, um, the dropping of the public option. Of
> > course it is impossible to predict that the opposition will net the
>
> > If health-care legislation ends up dying in the House, the 60 Senate
> > votes for it will end up having hurt the Democrats by pushing the issue
> > into 2010 and thus closer to the elections. (If it had died in the
> > undemocratic features. It will be harder to spin a repudiation in the
> > outcome certain.
> > *****************
> > Guy Fawkes?
>
> > Comparing what the Democrats in Congress are doing to making sausage is
> > an insult to sausage makers."--Sen. John Barrasso (R), NV
>
> > Merry Christmas.
>
> > No Surrender!
>
> > Dionysus
>
> Let's not forget the all important seat that Ted Kennedy once filled.
> That seat is currently filled by a demmie puppet from Massachusetts.
> Massachusetts voters will choose the new Senator on January 19.
>
> Surprisingly, republican candidate Scott Brown is currently ahead in the
> polls.
>
> If Scott Brown wins on January 19, ALL bets are off regarding the
> ObamaCare fiasco!
>
> Let's send Scott Brown to the US Senate on January 19!!!!!
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Smells like desperation to me.
The Obstructionist party is about ready to get its dues.
Trident
Michael Coburn
> FROM NRO
>
> HEAD: It’s Not Over
>
> SUB-HEAD: Health-care legislation could still fail in the House. By
> Ramesh Ponnuru
>
> Democrats are doing a victory lap. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs
> says that with Senate passage of the Reid bill, “Health-care reform is
> now a matter of when.” The press is doing its best to convey the
> impression that Republicans are throwing in the towel. Pundits have
> moved on to arguing what the opponents of the health legislation did
> wrong.
>
> But the Democratic celebrations are premature, as Republican despair
> would be. This battle isn’t over, and opponents of the legislation could
> still win.
The battle against fascist Republicanism is not near over. And the
Democrats are measuring how much of the fascist pig party must be kept
alive to preserve the illusion of a two party system. The Democrats are
in total control of the issue at this point.
> Throughout the debate, most people have assumed that if the legislation
> died it would be in the Senate. The assumption was understandable: The
> Senate is traditionally the place where legislation dies, where minority
> parties and sometimes individuals can block action. The House, on the
> other hand, is where party discipline is supposed to make it possible to
> enact nearly anything the majority party wants.
In this case it is what the majority of the people want. The forthcoming
vote in the House will be very, very simple. The people have the
opportunity at this point to accept the good tings in the Senate bill and
move on to doing more and better reform. Or they can act like idiots and
piss away all the hard won gains. The Senate has made it clear that they
will not pass an omnibus bill containing a public option and that they
will delay and obfuscate at any chance. There is simply NO WAY to get
any improved bill past the Senate. Joe LIEberman the Republican is
licking his chops. The House needs to accede to the Senate version anbd
begin work in the SEPARATE IMPROVEMENTS to it such as a Public Option as
a single piece of legislation and push it through the senate by
reconciliation. If that means a small tax increase to make it a deficit
reduction bill then so be it.
> What people are forgetting is how narrow the margin in the House was the
> last time around. Speaker Pelosi won the vote for her version of
> health-care reform by 220 to 215. If three votes had switched, the
> opposition would have won 218 to 217.
OR THE PROGRESS MINDED PEOPLE WOULD HAVE WON 223 to 212...
> Why would any of the 215 no votes switch to yes? Three possible reasons
> come to mind. First, some congressmen may think that the bill has
> improved: Perhaps a few Blue Dog Democrats will be pleased, for example,
> by the abandonment of the public option. Second, they may face more
> pressure from President Obama and Speaker Pelosi. But presumably the
> Democrats who voted no were already under a lot of pressure to keep the
> bill from dying the last time the House voted on it. Having said no
> earlier, they can probably say no again. (I’m assuming that Pelosi did
> not have many potential yes votes in reserve.) Third, they may face
> pressure from voters in their districts to vote for the bill. But this
> seems unlikely: I haven’t heard of a single congressman who voted no and
> now regrets it, and the polls do not suggest that a no vote carries
> electoral risks.
The missing public option should place a lot more Blue Cross Democrats on
the yes side according to their lame ass excuse for voting no the first
time. But that isn't likely as most of them are Republican lying pigs
dressed in a Democrat suit anyway. They will probably continue to vote
no and they may even switch parties because they are otherwise going to
be replaced.
> Now consider some of the reasons a few of the 220 yes votes might switch
> to no. My guess is that Reps. Bart Stupak (D., Mich.) and Joseph Cao
> (R., La.) will switch to no because the Senate bill is more
> abortion-friendly. Some other Democrats might come along with Stupak.
> Not many progressives will vote against the bill because it lacks a
> public option. Most of those who said they would were bluffing. But it
> wouldn’t take many of them to have an impact. If Stupak, Cao, and one
> progressive flip, and nobody flips Pelosi’s way, she loses the vote.
> Other congressmen may reconsider their support because the tide of
> public opinion is running against it.
What will happen in this deal is that the public will be waking up to the
fact that the Republicans bet the farm on stopping Obama and they have
lost. The Republicans never cared about the public good or the deficit
or anything else. It was about an Obama defeat all the way. The
Democrats _ARE_ celebrating and they certainly should be. The
Republicans have had their lying obstructing asses kicked and that goes a
very long way toward Democrats taking actual control and WINNING.
> So on the one hand Democrats gain Blue Dog votes because of the dropping
> of the public option, and on the other they lose votes because of
> abortion, public opinion, and, um, the dropping of the public option. Of
> course it is impossible to predict that the opposition will net the
> three required votes. But the possibility can’t be ruled out, either.
It can be ruled out if Pelosi and the Democrats are not bone stupid, and
they aren't. There is _NO_REASON_ for the Democrats to mess with the
Senate version of this bill if Pelosi makes a deal with the progressives
to bring a Public Option bill to the floor before July of 2010 so as to
_FIX_ that problem in the Bill already passed by the Senate.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PERMANENT LAW IN THIS NATION. THE SITTING
LEGISLATURE IS THE SOVEREIGN AT ALL TIMES AND CAN CREATE NEW LEGISLATION
THE ENHANCES, REPEALS, OR ALTERS ANY CURRENT LAW. THE IDEA THAT
EVERYTHING HAD TO BE IN THIS INITIAL LAW IS REPUBLICAN STUPIDITY SUCKED
ON AND ENFORCED BY THE CORPORATE OWNED MEDIA.
> If health-care legislation ends up dying in the House, the 60 Senate
> votes for it will end up having hurt the Democrats by pushing the issue
> into 2010 and thus closer to the elections.
This is actually even more stupid than the previous stupidity above.
WHEREAS 60% of the people have made a clear preference for the choice of
a Public Option then the Democrats will _WANT_ that issue in front of the
voters at campaign time.
> (If it had died in the
> Senate, liberals also would have been able to blame it on that body’s
> undemocratic features. It will be harder to spin a repudiation in the
> House.) The Senate has made the stakes higher. It hasn’t made the
> outcome certain.
> *****************
And last but not least we see that the Democrats are "all in". They can
pass this Senate Pig and fix it with Legislation that burns the Senate's
ass, or they can die a sure death from not passing health care reform
just like they did in 1994. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a political
nincompoop.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
John Q Public
MC Spammer and his ass tastin tongue o love in yet another blatantly
propagandist rant, who da thunk it!
Patriot Games
wrote:
Hated by everyone...
Alone at home on Christmas Eve...
Spreading self-loathing and hate on the Internet...
Truly, utterly, pathetic...