Reid: One GOP Vote Makes Health Care ‘Bipartisan’ (or None)


‘Bipartisan’ has different meanings to different people. For example, the stimulus bill got just 3 2 Republican votes. Was that a bipartisan effort? According to Reid, one vote is enough to make a bill bipartisan. And based on his comments here at least, a bill can be bipartisan even when only Democrats vote for it:

Remember, “bipartisan,” as we learned with the effort on the recovery package, we only needed two. Right now we only need one. But as I told McConnell after Specter indicated he was going to change parties, we’re going to try to do our best to get along — you know, the Rodney King deal. We believe — I believe, and I believe I’ve changed the way the Senate’s worked in the last 15 or 20 years, this last 100 days by saying, “You want amendments? Offer amendments. You want to offer one on abortion? Go ahead. You want to offer one on gun control? Go ahead.” We’re not concerned about protecting people from taking tough votes. We need to get a bill that is good for the American people, and if we just jam one through without giving the Republicans options to be part of the process, it won’t be as accepted…

Well first of all, one reason I want to do a bipartisan bill is we can do more. If we go to reconciliation, there’s certain things we cannot do because of the rules that accompany reconciliation. We probably couldn’t do, even if we got everything we wanted with reconciliation, we probably couldn’t do more than 75 percent of what needed to be done. With a bipartisan bill, we can do it all, and I hope we can do it all.

It seems Reid took one too many head shots during his boxing career, since he can’t remember the difference between ‘bipartisan’ and ‘filibuster-proof majority.’ He says that he needed two votes to make the ‘stimulus’ bill bipartisan, but now he needs just one. In each case, he’s talking about getting to 60 votes – the threshold for breaking a filibuster. If Al Franken joins the Senate, Reid won’t need any Republican votes to get to 60 (or, to make it ‘bipartisan’ in his book).

Reid’s also proud of the way the Senate operates right now. Since he’s become Senate Democratic leader, the use of filibusters has exploded – including the first ever filibuster of a Supreme Court justice. The federal deficit has increased to historic levels. And polls show that the American people hold the Congress in astoundingly low esteem. Job well done, Harry!

And what could lead the American people to their shame about how the Senate operates? How about the fact that Senate leaders utter phrases like “if we just jam one through without giving the Republicans options to be part of the process, it won’t be as accepted.” Once again, Reid’s test isn’t how many Republicans vote for it, or how many of their ideas are included, or whether they accept that the process has been fair. Reid’s goal is to make sure that Republicans have the option to be part of the process – even if the bill is ultimately rammed through.

If you’re proud of the way the Senate works, thank Harry Reid. If you want change, Reid seems incapable of delivering it.


RSS feed

3 Comments Leave a comment

I blame people like McCain, Graham and the other idiots in the RMSP who deified "Bipartisanship" in the past few years.

Martin Knight (Diary) Monday, May 11th at 6:32PM EST (link)

Good bills died in Committee or on the floor, killed by supposed Republicans because it wasn’t “Bipartisan” (as defined by the NYT) and far too many bad bills (i.e. McCain-Feingold, StimPack) made it into law because they met the (always lower in these cases) “Bipartisan” threshold.

How it works; 47 Republicans and 5 Democrats voting for a tax cut is not Bipartisanship, but 50 Democrats and 2 Republican voting for a tax hike is a Grand Bipartisan Coalition or Gang or some other BS.

If the consequences weren’t quite so alarming, listening to John McCain complain that the Spendulus was not “Bipartisan” would have been funny.

 

Using 50 votes instead of 60

Spiral (Diary) Monday, May 11th at 6:34PM EST (link)

There is a bright side to the possibility that the Democrats could side-step the filibuster and try to pass socialized (sovietizied) medicine with only a simple majority instead of 60 votes.

This would, hopefully, inform the Republicans that this idea that you “have to get 60 votes in the Senate to do anything” is complete nonsense. The 60 vote threshold is really just an excuse that Republicans use to persaude conservative voters that, “Well, we wanted to accomplish much of the conservative agenda. But we couldn’t because we need 60 votes in the Senate. I was sooooo surprised when we couldn’t convince a few Democrats to support our conservative agenda.”

The 60 vote threshold has prevented us from passing lots of conservative legislation over the years. But it dd not stop socialist legislation like Social Security, the Minumum wage, forced unionization, farm subsidies, the establishment of the Department of Education, Medicare, SCHIP and on and on.

Get rid of the rediculous 60 vote threshold. Vote issues up or down and defend your vote. Don’t hide behind some obscure Rule 22 of the Senate that no one outside the Washington Beltway cares about.

At least this way, the next time the GOP gets a Senate majority they will be able to enact conservative legislation, assuming John McCain is no longer in the Senate to talk endless of the need for bi-partisanship and hand-holding with Ted Kennedy.

Let’s hope the Democrats go nuclear and use the Byrd option.

 

The one drop rule comes to the Senate

Dan McLaughlin (Diary) Monday, May 11th at 7:58PM EST (link)

Actually, Harry can pass tripartisan legislation, so long as he gets the votes of the Socialist caucus (Bernie Sanders) and the Connecticut for Lieberman caucus.

“No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong.” – Winston Churchill