Comments on: Know (and Discuss) Your Draconian Senate Measures!

By: In Reconciliation Votes, a Grim History of Republican Partisanship « Submitted to a Candid World

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:34:31 +0000

[...] the device to only matters of taxing and spending. More accurately, the rule simply requires that all budget-neutral matters be excised from the bill. That means that the public option could pass through reconciliation; the ban on [...]

By: Reconciliation and Majority Rule « Submitted to a Candid World

Reconciliation and Majority Rule « Submitted to a Candid World — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:30:55 +0000

[...] First, don’t buy it. The “nuclear option” against which Obama and company argue in the video isn’t a single usage of reconciliation — it was a Republican plan in 2005 to flat-out remove the filibuster, permanently. Expect Republicans to continue to confuse the two “nuclear options” where it helps them. We saw this coming a few months ago. [...]

By: Obama’s Response to MA-Sen.: Too Temperate by Half « Submitted to a Candid World

Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:50:24 +0000

[...] to pass a separate, simple public option bill through reconciliation, now, if the current Senate bill [...]

By: An Idle Thought on Dirty Tricks « Submitted to a Candid World

An Idle Thought on Dirty Tricks « Submitted to a Candid World — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:55:55 +0000

[...] Healthcare, Obamacare, Reconciliation Hey — you know what would kill the Stupak Amendment? Reconciliation. The process of “reconciliation” cuts off debate, terminates amendments except under [...]

By: Philip H

Philip H — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:54:40 +0000

I’ll say this – there’s nothing muddled in Sen. Grassley’s response to “bipartisanship” on healthcare reform. After he got nearly everything he wanted out of Democrats on the senate Finance Committee, he strutted around preening about how the bill was moving farther to the left. Which he followed by voting against it.

He can keep that form of bipartisan ship, as far as I’m concerned.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:15:17 +0000

Yeah – I kind of prefer that. When we have these muddled, lousy attempts at bipartisanship all it does is give both sides political deniability down the road.

By: Philip H

Philip H — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:09:16 +0000

Mike,
If Deomcrats are “responsible” when they are in charge, then Republicans are “responsible” when they’re in charge. Its all about the majority, not the hangers on.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:08:16 +0000

Sure, all of that is applicable.

The point I was making though is that if no Republicans vote yes on healthcare then it’s pretty hard to tar them if it fails. With spending/fiscal policy the Left signed on to a lot of that spending so it’s hard to call any one party responsible.

By: Philip H

Philip H — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:42:08 +0000

MIke,
Republicans in Congress cry about how, especially when Democrats are in power, Republicans are all about fiscal responsibility. History proves otherwise. I’d put it this way:

What Republicans say about Democrats “Tax and spend”

What Republicans actually do “Taxcut and spend”

Which is more likely to be fiscally irresponsible?

And which has the offedning Party done more to run away from?

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:37:56 +0000

I don’t get the connection? Are you saying that even if Democrats DO have to stand alone on this they will just spin it that it was a success no matter how it turns out?