Comments on: Democrats contemplating just passing the Senate HCR bill?

By: Swamp_Yankee

Swamp_Yankee — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:09:07 +0000

It looks like we will get either an extremely watered down bill that will be easier to defund, cut and gut or it will be the liberals who kill entirely kill it.

What say you Roland Burris. What say you House liberals.

By: denniswayne

denniswayne — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:50:31 +0000

It is coming down to a choice for Democrats: Passing a bill w/o the public option and w/o federal funding for abortions, or pass no bill at all. But not passing a bill is just not an option – nothing is more important.

It will be positioned as a “best we can do for now” blamed on those “conservative” villains Lieberman and Nelson. Followed up with a strong appeal for participation in 2010 by the 18-30 yr olds and black constituencies (whose lukewarm turnout is blamed for the results in NJ and VA), i.e., the strategy will be to build on top in the next Congress or in particular after Obama is re-elected in 2012. And the left will renew its efforts to purge moderates from the party.

Even if Republicans do well in 2010, the numbers will not change such that the GOP will have the 60 votes it would need to overturn what gets passed now. The White House and the Party sees this as a long-term process.

I wish I wasn’t such a pessimist about this.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:50:17 +0000

By: Socrates

Socrates — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:45:01 +0000

Even though it is, really. They’re just going to say it’s not.

Log jammed barking fastidges.

By: bk

bk — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:20:57 +0000

even though they tossed PelosiCare and plugged in ReidCare. So they’ll say that they followed the Constitution, and it’s not like they care what the Constitution says anyway.

By: bk

bk — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:18:44 +0000

just what I thought might be likely or not based on gut feel.

As to what’s worse, they’re all bad. To me it’s kind of like choosing between getting kicked in the groin or having someone smash my thumb with a hammer – I’d prefer none of the above.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:23:33 +0000

that it would greatly burden ins cos and raise premiums thus igniting anger against them even further while making them provide things Americans want, but having cover for the dems? Rather than a drastic bill that could arouse the ire of voters against the dems, it would merely speed up the day when a public option becomes inevitable.

I think we are better off if they pass a massive tax increase and mandate with fines, etc that will look like a slap in the face to the tea parties and seniors and those that are happy with current health care…

still thinking

of course I want NO bill to pass

By: Socrates

Socrates — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 15:05:16 +0000

The Senate bill raises taxes. All such bills must arise in the House.

By: michigan

michigan — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:58:15 +0000

ilk are politically suicidal. This bill to gain control of the American and its culture is the Holy Grail to the progressive movement. I wouldn’t be surprised if they had planned on many Democrat seats as casualties. Even Reid, substantially behind in the polls at home, doesn’t even blink and in fact doubles down on the rhetoric and behind locked door methods used to craft a bill that not only the American people have no idea what it contains, but his own members. They will do whatever they have to do to pass this; no political cost to them is too high, even the Presidency. This is a once in a century opportunity when last November, they fooled millions of American people to let their guard down on false pretenses.

By: neoavatara

neoavatara — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:41:45 +0000

Really, if the progressives can’t get the basics of what they want with supermajorities in Congress, they will never get it. Their liberal dream of universal health care will die on the vine. Will that be the breaking point between them and Obama? And how much incompetence will they accept before having ‘tea parties’ of their own?
http://neoavatara.com/blog/?p=9078

By: bk

bk — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:40:18 +0000

I immediately thought you were talking about the Senate backing up and passing Pelosi’s original bill, but you’re talking about the House trying to pass whatever comes over from the Senate.

Pelosi could set aside her ego to do that perhaps, since whatever comes over won’t have Stupak in it.

By: janis

janis — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:31:34 +0000

“House of Representatives” + “credibility”. Hmmmmm…..

Nope. One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn’t belong.

By: bk

bk — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:23:11 +0000

If Pelosi’s ego wasn’t so large, she could have let the Senate come up with something and then gotten it passed it the House. Going the other route is difficult to see, since the Senate has 100 egos the size of Pelosi’s, and none of them would want to look like they are bowing to her.

But now Reid has gotten himself backed into a corner and I can’t see this approach working. Even ignoring the egos involved, I don’t see how they can pass PelosiCare now – after railing about how the Nelson Amendment would make women wish they were living under Taliban rule instead of in the USA, how can the liberals in the Senate vote for PelosiCare when it includes Stupak?

By: penguin2

penguin2 — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:21:23 +0000

But by all means, figuratively speaking, it should take many of them down. If the House did it, without the Stupak Amendment language, I don’t know how they could ever have any credibility again.