Forget Tuesday, It's Defcon 1

[Mr. Bill]

The democraps are planning the nuclear option. Not that the repubutards can do a thing about it...

Senate Can Pass Health With 51 Votes, Van Hollen Says (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

Tuesday shall be very interesting!

 

[Mac1958]

There's no way the Democrats are dumb enough to use reconciliation. It would be political suicide. No way they're that stupid.

Wait, they're politicians...

Okay, strike that remark.

.

 

[insurehound]

Hey Mac1958...I like your tag line

 

[Mac1958]

Hey Mac1958...I like your tag line

Thanks - true story, my former band and I were setting up one afternoon for a gig in a nightclub, and two crusty old guys walked in and sat down at a table near the stage. One of them yelled towards the bar:

"Hey waitress, bring us a bottle of tequila and call the cops."

I must have laughed for an hour.

,

 

[Mr. Bill]

Yep, Defcon 1. The dems will go nuclear:


But even as Obama campaigned for Coakley in Boston Sunday, top aides furiously weighed options if she loses. They include:

_Acting before Brown is sworn in. Congressional and White House negotiators could try to reconcile the House and Senate bills quickly and pass the new version before Brown takes office. A firestorm of criticism would follow, but some Democrats say it would be better than having no bill.

_Seeking a Republican to cast the crucial 60th Senate vote. Some Democrats hope Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, might do this, but others seriously doubt it.

_Start over and pass a new, scaled back health bill using budget reconciliation, which requires a simple majority of 51 Senate votes. Several Senate aides said this was unlikely.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly ruled out a House vote on the Senate's version, and privately, officials have raised concerns about asking the rank and file to vote on legislation containing provisions that might prove problematic in the midterm elections.

My Way News - Dems look at bypassing Senate health care vote

 

[Winter_123]

Yep, Defcon 1. The dems will go nuclear:


But even as Obama campaigned for Coakley in Boston Sunday, top aides furiously weighed options if she loses. They include:

_Acting before Brown is sworn in. Congressional and White House negotiators could try to reconcile the House and Senate bills quickly and pass the new version before Brown takes office. A firestorm of criticism would follow, but some Democrats say it would be better than having no bill.

_Seeking a Republican to cast the crucial 60th Senate vote. Some Democrats hope Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, might do this, but others seriously doubt it.

_Start over and pass a new, scaled back health bill using budget reconciliation, which requires a simple majority of 51 Senate votes. Several Senate aides said this was unlikely.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly ruled out a House vote on the Senate's version, and privately, officials have raised concerns about asking the rank and file to vote on legislation containing provisions that might prove problematic in the midterm elections.

My Way News - Dems look at bypassing Senate health care vote

All of these options are headed nowhere.

First of all, there is zero chance that Olympia is going to vote for it based on shady maneuvers. She is a moderate but not a political whore, and she is a very, very methodical person. She was opposed to the bill being introduced without allowing amendments from the floor and she was opposed to the lack of transarency and she is a very principled legislator and those are important to her. I know many folks disagree with me on her handling of things but I remain with my own perspective as long as it continues to match reality and it has. Ten visits to the White House for breakfast did not cause her to change her vote. I am not saying she will not ultimatley vote for some moderate bill because she will. The notion that she is going to participate in rushing a bill through with no transparency though is absurd. She is a moderate but not a whore or an ***. All the pundits conveniently forget to point out that Snowe voted against the Senate bill and said "I don't see what the rush is to pass something that people have not even had a chance to see and will not go into effect for several more years." The State of Maine could have had anything it wanted for pork to get her vote. We don't want it.

Second, I dont see how they can introduce a scaled back health bill through reconciliation. Reconciliation of a billl or bills already out on to the floor may only require a simple majority but it would take 60 votes to introduce a new scaled-back bill and vote it out on to the floor and then use the nuclear option on it. That is a parliamentary mess.Reconciliation is to tidy up the budgetary aspects of program bills that have already passed in substance. It is a stretch to use them as program bills and use the adjustment process as a means of passing the substantive bill.

Third, in regard to the commies in Mass messing around with the certification process, their law does not speak to certification of the elected. It says "qualification" which is a lower standard. In other words they only have to determine that the elected meets the citizenship, age, and residency requirements under the constitution. I will concede that it will more complicated if a recount is required due to a very thin margin but I accept that as part of democracy as long as they dont play with it and follow whatever the margin rules are there.

The dems do have at least one parliamentary move that could work in theory but they dont have the votes to go with it. The Senate bill has already passed in the Senate. In theory (note the word "theory") the House could just pass it as is and then it would go to Obama. Perhaps Mrs. Pelosi can use her considerable charms to make that happen. hehehehehe. I suppose in theory too if you could design that new stripped down bill and get it out on to the senate floor while you still have the massachusetts vote, you could still try to pass it through reconciliation after that vote is gone. Good luck with that too. Perhaps Sen. Light-Skinned Reid can use his considerable charms to make that happen. I am willing to watch.

But frig it, let em do whatever they want. The dems are developing a nasty, nasty reputation for Chicago politics, lack of transparency, acorn ethics, and parliamentary gamesmanship to subvert the will of the people. That is fine with me. As long as we keep seeing a loser a month fall out and then a package deal in November. Everyone sees their shiite now.

 

[djs]

Third, in regard to the commies in Mass messing around with the certification process, their law does not speak to certification of the elected. It says "qualification" which is a lower standard. In other words they only have to determine that the elected meets the citizenship, age, and residency requirements under the constitution.

If I understand it, the Senate rules are what require the race to be certified. In California, I think the Secretary of State has 30 days to certify an election, which is probably true in most states. This is from the old days of hand counted ballots and to allow time for any needed recounts.

The 5 days to allow overseas ballots to come in is fair. It can take some time to count absentee ballots, so I can see it taking a week or so to get the actual vote counts.

If its a close election, there will be some back and forth. If there is a clear winner, I don't see them monkeying around with the certification. Its a good story, just don't see it actually happening.

Dan

 

[Winter_123]

If I understand it, the Senate rules are what require the race to be certified. In California, I think the Secretary of State has 30 days to certify an election, which is probably true in most states. This is from the old days of hand counted ballots and to allow time for any needed recounts.

Dan

Depends on how complex the election is in Mass. Mass law only requires 15 days after the election. So it could be that soon if there were a clear winner. Unlike California, the problem in Mass is that there is no end date when certfication must occur. The 15 days is just a waiting period for the return of absentee ballot. So if there is no clear winner, there is room for gamesmanship.

You also have room for gamesmanship at the Senate end because it is not clear how long they have to seat the Senator after the state has certified.

As discussed, let em do whatever they want. Everytime they do stuff like like that (as with the lack of transparency and the threat of reconciliation) it just dips their health bill in more and more doo-doo in the minds of the public. They do it at their peril and apparently they have not had enough pain. Okay fine. More pain coming up tomorrow.

 

[ins.dave]

Depends on how complex the election is in Mass. Mass law only requires 15 days after the election. So it could be that soon if there were a clear winner. Unlike California, the problem in Mass is that there is no end date when certfication must occur. The 15 days is just a waiting period for the return of absentee ballot. So if there is no clear winner, there is room for gamesmanship.

You also have room for gamesmanship at the Senate end because it is not clear how long they have to seat the Senator after the state has certified.

As discussed, let em do whatever they want. Everytime they do stuff like like that (as with the lack of transparency and the threat of reconciliation) it just dips their health bill in more and more doo-doo in the minds of the public. They do it at their peril and apparently they have not had enough pain. Okay fine. More pain coming up tomorrow.

You're the crime ... I'm the cure.

Bring the pain ... I'm the PainKiller.

 

[Mr. Bill]

Awesome! Gotta love Judas Priest!

This is a great one, too!