Comments on: Hammond: Where we are on ObamaCare

By: america1st

america1st — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:07:15 +0000

Not only for posting Atty Hammond’s insightful commentary, but for making me aware of him. He must have run in 1st District primaries before I was paying attention to the candidates there, because until today I swear I’d not seen his name.

By: bk

bk — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:34:21 +0000

I was going to ask about reconciliation, but about 10 people beat me to it. I hope it stays the case that they don’t have the votes for it. That would make an easy copout for the Democrats, since under reconciliation the red state Dems could vote against the bill.

Can you explain what the gatekeeper business is about? In the House Pelosi makes the rules, but the in the Senate the rules override everything. It’s always funny to hear someone like Specter (when he was on our side) saying in effect to people like Leahy that it was okay if they screwed him, as long as they followed the right rules for doing so. But I digress – it sounds like this gatekeeper deal is one of those arcane things that no normal person would understand, but is key to getting things tied up in knots.

Lastly, I don’t get this comment. “If the bill cannot go to conference, it must be “ping-ponged” between houses. This means that every time it comes back to the House or Senate, it is, at least in theory, fully amendable, as though it had never been considered by either body.” If a bill is ping-ponged, then by definition it HAS been approved in the other chamber right? Maybe it’s just a semantic thing – I guess the point was to draw a distinction between how an original bill is amendable while a conference report is not.

By: Richard Mullins

Richard Mullins — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:12:11 +0000

is a good Senate Poker player and Reid is not. I think I’ll work on something about Senate Poker later today.

By: Swamp_Yankee

Swamp_Yankee — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 07:13:33 +0000

I disagree that reconciliation is off the table. But I like the analysis. Thinking and fighting. We need more. We do make a difference despite what the Vichy activists around here state. We are not defeated. This battle is too important.

By: montanan

montanan — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 06:38:18 +0000

But Tester is up for re-election and having something this corrosive on his record as a yes vote will kill him with the people that got him elected in the first place. Baucus is invulnerable for the moment- it would take either a stick of dynamite or a prostitution ring to get him out of office- but Tester is a rookie with nothing substantal on his record and at the moment he brings nothing to the people of Montana but a reputation for bad haircuts.

By: dallas1836

dallas1836 — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:56:05 +0000

I like the optimism in the post by Dan, but I’m worried about the left’s lack of concern for public opinion, their own seats, and the like. Some of these people probably would rather martyr themselves on the altar of huge gov’t than keep their seats. Time will tell.

By: Dan Perrin

Dan Perrin — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:24:52 +0000

the instructions, was a month ago, Oct. 15th.

By: Dan Perrin

Dan Perrin — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:24:08 +0000

it is just that simple.

By: Dan Perrin

Dan Perrin — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:23:13 +0000

who would likely disagree with my assessment, but I put the odds at 70% nothing gets done.

By: Dan Perrin

Dan Perrin — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:19:28 +0000

There are too many Dem Senators on record against doing it, including one, Sen. Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Commitee who has said publicly that getting to 60 votes to cut off the filibuster is easier than doing reconciliation.

By: Dan Perrin

Dan Perrin — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:18:02 +0000

That is why they have not used this technique yet.

The above memo was written by Hammond, not Perrin, but I agree with Hammond.

By: writeblock

writeblock — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:07:24 +0000

…with the power to decide what gets included and what doesn’t. It would make swiss cheese out of a bill that’s comprehensively leftwing. Would moderate senators go for that, knowing it could be reconfigured in conference into the nightmare bill they don’t want?

By: writeblock

writeblock — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:58:56 +0000

…after five years unless renewed? And how likely would that be, given how disgusted the public is right now?

By: Common_Cents

Common_Cents — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:46:42 +0000

Public opinion mattered to Clinton, but does not to Obama. DEMS are much different today, much more elitist and bold They will pass what they can despite public opinion and fact checking, as they think the rest of us are peons and gun totin bible clingers.

By: civil_truth

civil_truth — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:01:06 +0000

…based on the Senate’s version (unless there’s been some Parliamentary trickery to avoid a second House vote) of a limited bill that may not cover some key issues, which in turn would make it harder to keep the House together.

Especially if the NY-23 flips and Cao gets enough heat from his campaign supporters.

No, the Democrats first choice is still to finagle a bill through the Senate and then Conference and an up/down vote on the Report at which point arms can be twisted out of joint.

By: Maureenthetemp

Maureenthetemp — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:48:48 +0000

You really think Rahm & Co. spent all that time setting up reconciliation as an option and they won’t use it? This is the Dems big moment to grab 1/6th of the economy and turn us into Europe — do you really think they’d forgo using reconciliation for something this important to them? From your keyboard to God’s iPhone, but I don’t believe it.

By: farstar99

farstar99 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:46:52 +0000

Well, probably.

As for Montana being a secondary target, it’s pretty much hopeless. Baucus feels important for the first time in his miserable life and his little Mini Me, Jon Tester, wouldn’t dream of stepping out of his shadow and voting any way but Big Daddy’s way.

By: DavidSage

DavidSage — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:44:54 +0000

I’m curious if anything will get passed at all.

As a result of liberals insisting on the public option, it’s much more likely this bill fails. If it fails in the Senate, what then happens? Time is the biggest enemy here.

If this vote goes into next year, and fails, I would think most Democrats would want to stop the bleeding and prefer to move on and focus on their elections rather than keep messing with this bill. Obama and Democrats’ numbers just keep going down the longer their on the subject of health care reform.

I think the absolute best case for Republicans (if it goes our way) is after having all of these House members walk the plank for this bill, it ends up dying in the Senate and nothing gets passed, making the blue Dogs in the House sacrifice their careers for absolutely nothing.

By: Spartan4Life

Spartan4Life — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:31:28 +0000

I still hear alot of libs right up to the WH talking as if this is the fallback position.

Is that just to soothe the netroots?

By: erod

erod — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:29:12 +0000

do you really think the Dems are going to take reconciliation off the table? I don’t, I believe it will be used even if it is to pass a bill that was a shell of its former self. They are going to pass something, anything with the name “healthcare reform” on it. Simply, put the Obama WH is not going to botch this up because they know what’s at stake: his presidency. Perhaps I’m giving them way too much credit but these guys are real snakes. I’m also disheartened and worried by last week’s House vote that seemed to prove the Dems can and will shove anything through consequences be damned.