An idea for the democrats

[rwetmore]

Maybe the House can deem the Senate bill passed, and then Obama can deem the bill signed - then Congress can amend the bill which was deemed passed and then deemed signed?

Hell, why not just deem the constitution never written and deem Obama free to write and sign whatever legislation he wants?

I have an even better idea: Let's deem them all out of office now!!!

[rwetmore]

It looks like they are abandoning the "deem and pass" thing and are just going after a straight passage of the Senate bill.

[Corlyss_D]

^^^

Discussion of it likely was only a trial balloon. Public outrage was so great, they decided not to do it.

[rwetmore]

Does anyone know when they are going to finally actually vote for this damn thing today?

We all know they are going to pass it. At this point I just want to be put out of my misery.

[jbuck919]

Does anyone know when they are going to finally actually vote for this damn thing today?

We all know they are going to pass it. At this point I just want to be put out of my misery.

And I won't believe it until it's actually been signed by Obama.

And I have an idea for the Republicans: Start preparing now your strategy for poo-pooing your level of opposition to this after people decide they love it.

[Barry]

Some Republicans in the Senate claim they have a counter-procedural tactic that would eventually force the House to vote on the package yet again. But I have a feeling the Democrats have a counter-measure ready for that effort by the Republicans and will be able to close the thing out.

[rwetmore]

And I won't believe it until it's actually been signed by Obama.

Trust me, they are going to pass this thing - you can start celebrating now.

And I have an idea for the Republicans: Start preparing now your strategy for poo-pooing your level of opposition to this after people decide they love it.

Most of the provisions in the bill don't take effect for several years. If what you are saying is accurate - that people will love it, why have they postponed the implementation to after their re-elections?

[jbuck919]

And I have an idea for the Republicans: Start preparing now your strategy for poo-pooing your level of opposition to this after people decide they love it.

Most of the provisions in the bill don't take effect for several years. If what you are saying is accurate - that people will love it, why have they postponed the implementation to after their re-elections?

It is a very good question, but remember that it is fear about the effects on the very next election that has made it so difficult to get the necessary Democratic votes. This is Obama's League of Nations and he's hoping that he and his party won't suffer the political equivalent of Wilson's stroke, but he has been willing to take that chance (and I imagine a lot of Democrats are grumbling that it was not his chance to take). To take another historical analogy, the extremes of the anti-war movement in 1972 had a problem not with Nixon but with McGovern because he couldn't guarantee an instant and complete withdrawal from Vietnam. I imagine that avoiding delay in the provisions is equally difficult. If one accepts as I do the premise that Obama believes that the nation will be grateful to the Democrats for what was done, then he would not condone provisions in the bill that would be time bombs ticking against his party two to four years in the future.

I'll be the first to admit that, in spite of my "advice" stated above, the Republicans may make a lot of hay out of this. Next fall they will still be able to campaign against the bill as an unrealized bogeyman. By the time provisions take effect, Republicans will have the advantage of the electorate's poor memory. No one will care what they stood for two or four years ago. In fact, some of them will probably try to take credit for it.

So, is everybody ready for the CMG debate on immigration reform?

[THEHORN]

I doubt very much that if a conservative republican president is elected in 2112 and a lot of the democrats in Washington are voted out of office this year and the republicans are in power, that they'll come of with anything better in terms of health care or other issues.
In fact, things could very well be much worse under republican domination.
Sure,Palin and other republicans are promising gullible conservatives that they're going to restore "freedom" to America and all that , and to fight the "socialism" ,"marxism" and communism" that is supposedly being foisted on America by the Obama administration, but forget it.
And conservative judges can legislate unfairly,too and interpret the constitution to
conform to their own conservative agenda.

[rwetmore]

It is a very good question, but remember that it is fear about the effects on the very next election that has made it so difficult to get the necessary Democratic votes.

Then why not put as much of if as possible into effect immediately so everyone can see how great it is? That would help their re-elections this year, right?

[jbuck919]

Sure,Palin and other republicans are promising gullible conservatives that they're going to restore "freedom" to America and all that , and to fight the "socialism" ,"marxism" and communism" that is supposedly being foisted on America by the Obama administration, but forget it.

We may already be seeing the limits of a strategy of sweeping generalization and scare-monger labeling. What we might call Palinism is essentially a movement of demagoguery, and if you look at US elections in the 20th century, whatever you want to say about any of the major candidates, there haven't been any demagogues. I think a modern electorate, even one with such visible marginal constituencies as we have in the US, is collectively immune to the empty-headedness of fringe politics. I don't think we have to worry about the next Republican being any worse than, say, Reagan or George W.

Wait a minute....

[RebLem]

Right now, all the House Republicants are getting up and reading a statement off a piece of paper they all carry to the mike. Some of them can't eem to read it or say it very well, even when they have heard ten people before them say the same thing, which tells you that many of them have paid more attention to NASCAR than to their English teachers. It says, "I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks on this flawed health care bill."

I predict that the statements they submit, if they are allowed to do so, will be about as original as the boilerplate request they made. The only people that can benefit from this are in the lumber industry. I say the DEMS should save a forest and deny unanimous consent. To be fair, they should allow the Republicant members who are physicians--and there are quite a few, actually--to make such revised and extended statements. Some of them might actually have something original to say. The others won't.

[keaggy220]

So, is everybody ready for the CMG debate on immigration reform?

I'm sure this is what most liberals are hoping for... The health care thing is not going away anytime soon though... The democrats have lit a fuse that will make partisan politics of the past look like child's play.

[jbuck919]

Right now, all the House Republicants are getting up and reading a statement off a piece of paper they all carry to the mike. Some of them can't eem to read it or say it very well, even when they have heard ten people before them say the same thing, which tells you that many of them have paid more attention to NASCAR than to their English teachers. It says, "I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks on this flawed health care bill."

I'd love it if that were made into a clip for a Democratic campaign ad. Just one Republican after another parroting the same words from the boilerplate (not the ones you quoted, though, because Democrats say that too). Then for a voiceover: "Republicans and communist legislators--of one mind in the service of their country." (Naw, but makes a nice fantasy.)

[rwetmore]

I feel bad for these Stupak democrats. I watched their press conference. They are overly trusting, poorly informed and being totally used. Obama doesn't care one bit about them or their abortion stance - he's just giving and promising them whatever they want to get their vote. Once this thing is passed, Obama will probably be laughing at them them for being so gullible (if he isn't already). The executive order, even if enacted, doesn't necessarily supersede legislation and it can be undone really easily. Obama is probably the most pro abortion President we've ever had, which is why I'm surprised this group was willing to place any trust in him at all. It goes to show you how much these people really want this healthcare thing, and also why when push comes to shove, they are going to get the votes needed for passage.

[RebLem]

I feel bad for these Stupak democrats. I watched their press conference. They are overly trusting, poorly informed and being totally used. Obama doesn't care one bit about them or their abortion stance - he's just giving and promising them whatever they want to get their vote. Once this thing is passed, Obama will probably be laughing at them them for being so gullible (if he isn't already). Obama is probably the most pro abortion President we've ever had, which is why I'm surprised this group was willing to place any trust in him at all.

Do you have any evidence for any of this, or does your computer have diarrhea?

[rwetmore]

I feel bad for these Stupak democrats. I watched their press conference. They are overly trusting, poorly informed and being totally used. Obama doesn't care one bit about them or their abortion stance - he's just giving and promising them whatever they want to get their vote. Once this thing is passed, Obama will probably be laughing at them them for being so gullible (if he isn't already). Obama is probably the most pro abortion President we've ever had, which is why I'm surprised this group was willing to place any trust in him at all.

Do you have any evidence for any of this,

Yes. It's extremely unlikely any court is going to uphold an executive order over real legislation passed by both houses of congress. Has there ever been such a precedent? And what about when Obama is no longer president or they're no longer in congress? He could easily and quietly just rescind the entire order. The Stupak group are being totally scammed. Obama knows this isn't likely to hold up even if he enacts it, but he's leading them to believe it will. He's literally and knowingly coning them - I believe. As I said, it goes to show you how bad these people want this healthcare thing. It's affecting their ability to think clearly, thoroughly and rationally. Eventually - probably in the next few days, they are going to figure all this out and regret voting for it (I predict).

[jbuck919]

I feel bad for these Stupak democrats. I watched their press conference. They are overly trusting, poorly informed and being totally used. Obama doesn't care one bit about them or their abortion stance - he's just giving and promising them whatever they want to get their vote. Once this thing is passed, Obama will probably be laughing at them them for being so gullible (if he isn't already). Obama is probably the most pro abortion President we've ever had, which is why I'm surprised this group was willing to place any trust in him at all.

Do you have any evidence for any of this,

Yes. It's extremely unlikely any court is going to uphold an executive order over real legislation passed by both houses of congress with something like this. Has there ever been such a precedent? And what about when Obama is no longer president or they're no longer in congress? He could easily and quietly just rescind the entire order. The Stupak group are being totally scammed. Obama knows this isn't likely to hold up even if he enacts it, but he's leading them to believe it will. He's literally and knowingly coning them - I believe. As I said, it goes to show you how bad these people want this healthcare thing. It's affecting their ability to think clearly, thoroughly and rationally. Eventually - probably in the next few days, they are going to figure all this out and regret voting for this thing (I predict).

OK, here's my take. Anyone with a better set of facts (and I don't mean the assumptions Randall is working under) is welcome to suggest revisions. The legislation already says no federal funding for abortion. What the anti-abortion Democrats wanted was, in effect, a prohibition on any organization (specifically insurance companies) that receives federally subsidized premiums paying out any money under any circumstances for any abortion. I know of no precedent for that kind of prohibition aimed at private enterprise as opposed to a state, and imagine that it might be challenged in court. My guess is that the anti-abortion group accepted the President's promise and the order (which he is surely not going to just turn around and contravene) as something they can use on an as-needed basis to beat over the heads of anyone attempting to "sneak in" a paid-for abortion down the road. If I am right, then (from their own point of view) it was a significant concession on the part of the congressmen, who traded a bird not quite in the hand (statutory scrupulosity) for perhaps not even two in the bush (a weapon of likely limited utility in their war chest).

[rwetmore]

OK, here's my take. Anyone with a better set of facts (and I don't mean the assumptions Randall is working under) is welcome to suggest revisions. The legislation already says no federal funding for abortion. What the anti-abortion Democrats wanted was, in effect, a prohibition on any organization (specifically insurance companies) that receives federally subsidized premiums paying out any money under any circumstances for any abortion. I know of no precedent for that kind of prohibition aimed at private enterprise as opposed to a state, and imagine that it might be challenged in court. My guess is that the anti-abortion group accepted the President's promise and the order (which he is surely not going to just turn around and contravene) as something they can use on an as-needed basis to beat over the heads of anyone attempting to "sneak in" a paid-for abortion down the road. If I am right, then (from their own point of view) it was a significant concession on the part of the congressmen, who traded a bird not quite in the hand (statutory scrupulosity) for perhaps not even two in the bush (a weapon of likely limited utility in their war chest).

I think you're missing the point. They were firm against voting for this bill without it having the precise prohibitive language they wanted. They are being led to believe they're getting that language put in indirectly, with the same net effect as if it were in the original bill, with the President's order. They are not.

[Corlyss_D]

I know of no precedent for that kind of prohibition aimed at private enterprise as opposed to a state, and imagine that it might be challenged in court.

After what has happened for the last 18 months to private enterprise and the sanctity of contracts, somehow it seems a bit feeble to complain about this as an intrusion into private enterprise. Where were you when the government was buying stock in auto companies and banks, in return for forced lending, forced bailouts, using the entire weight of the federal government to crush competitors like Toyota. The only entre the government has is to give money and the government as every right to control how the public's money is spent, regardless of the nature of the recipients. You objection amounts to swallowing an elephant and choking on a gnat.

[jbuck919]

OK, here's my take. Anyone with a better set of facts (and I don't mean the assumptions Randall is working under) is welcome to suggest revisions. The legislation already says no federal funding for abortion. What the anti-abortion Democrats wanted was, in effect, a prohibition on any organization (specifically insurance companies) that receives federally subsidized premiums paying out any money under any circumstances for any abortion. I know of no precedent for that kind of prohibition aimed at private enterprise as opposed to a state, and imagine that it might be challenged in court. My guess is that the anti-abortion group accepted the President's promise and the order (which he is surely not going to just turn around and contravene) as something they can use on an as-needed basis to beat over the heads of anyone attempting to "sneak in" a paid-for abortion down the road. If I am right, then (from their own point of view) it was a significant concession on the part of the congressmen, who traded a bird not quite in the hand (statutory scrupulosity) for perhaps not even two in the bush (a weapon of likely limited utility in their war chest).

I think you're missing the point. They were firm against voting for this bill without it having the precise prohibitive language they wanted. They are being led to believe they're getting that language put in indirectly, with the same net effect as if it were in the original bill, with the President's order. They are not.

They're not fools. They know exactly what they're getting. Face it, guy, they compromised, and very sensibly too.

[jbuck919]

I know of no precedent for that kind of prohibition aimed at private enterprise as opposed to a state, and imagine that it might be challenged in court.

After what has happened for the last 18 months to private enterprise and the sanctity of contracts, somehow it seems a bit feeble to complain about this as an intrusion into private enterprise. Where were you when the government was buying stock in auto companies and banks, in return for forced lending, forced bailouts, using the entire weight of the federal government to crush competitors like Toyota. The only entre the government has is to give money and the government as every right to control how the public's money is spent, regardless of the nature of the recipients. You objection amounts to swallowing an elephant and choking on a gnat.

Slapping conditions on a company in return for saving them from bankruptcy is not the same thing as dictating the running of an arbitrary expanse of their business because some of their clients pay for a service with money they got from the federal government. The logical extension of the latter practice is that the government could dictate a range of business practices to any retail enterprise where government workers might happen to shop.

[Corlyss_D]

I know of no precedent for that kind of prohibition aimed at private enterprise as opposed to a state, and imagine that it might be challenged in court.

After what has happened for the last 18 months to private enterprise and the sanctity of contracts, somehow it seems a bit feeble to complain about this as an intrusion into private enterprise. Where were you when the government was buying stock in auto companies and banks, in return for forced lending, forced bailouts, using the entire weight of the federal government to crush competitors like Toyota. The only entre the government has is to give money and the government as every right to control how the public's money is spent, regardless of the nature of the recipients. You objection amounts to swallowing an elephant and choking on a gnat.

Slapping conditions on a company in return for saving them from bankruptcy is not the same thing as dictating the running of an arbitrary expanse of their business because some of their clients pay for a service with money they got from the federal government.

The patient can always pay for the abortion herself. Insurance plans offered wtih government money, including medicaid and the insurance plans offered to federal employees have not permitted abortion for years. Nothing is different here.

The logical extension of the latter practice is that the government could dictate a range of business practices to any retail enterprise where government workers might happen to shop.

I have no doubt that is the ultimate destination of all the regrettable precedents established over the last 18 months, but I don't thing it applies to abortion where use of federal funds has been prohibited for 34 years. However, I do wonder why this idea doesn't upset you in any other context but abortions.

[rwetmore]

They're not fools. They know exactly what they're getting. Face it, guy, they compromised, and very sensibly too.

In their minds I don't think they believe they compromised one bit, so I don't buy that. Look how insistent and specific they were about the exact wording of the order and the needing of assurances and so forth.

[jbuck919]

Slapping conditions on a company in return for saving them from bankruptcy is not the same thing as dictating the running of an arbitrary expanse of their business because some of their clients pay for a service with money they got from the federal government.

The patient can always pay for the abortion herself. Insurance plans offered wtih government money, including medicaid and the insurance plans offered to federal employees have not permitted abortion for years. Nothing is different here.

I was not arguing the merits of the ban, or for any loosening up. Though I think that not funding an expensive medical procedure is in effect prohibiting it for the poor and thereby rendering pro-choice moot, I accept a continued ban on federal funding for abortions as a matter of reasonable compromise. But to get back to the burden of my exchange with Randall, since, as you indicated, what we faced already was a continuation of current policy which effectively bans federal funding for abortion, why the heck were those guys holding things up in the hopes of getting something supposedly even more strict? Not that it matters now, but I was addressing Randall's unfounded concern that the Dems are somehow going to lift the ban.

The logical extension of the latter practice is that the government could dictate a range of business practices to any retail enterprise where government workers might happen to shop.

I have no doubt that is the ultimate destination of all the regrettable precedents established over the last 18 months, but I don't thing it applies to abortion where use of federal funds has been prohibited for 34 years. However, I do wonder why this idea doesn't upset you in any other context but abortions.

You are apparently interpreting the government's interventions following the 2008 crash as a deliberate and planned attempt to socialize the industries that were kept alive with government money. That is a just plain unsupportable way of interpreting events. Taking over the car companies in order to put Toyota out of business? Manufacturing or at least manipulating the acceleration problem to make matters worse? That is nothing better than a conspiracy theory, unworthy of you when there is so much room for play for political critiques in the domain of reality.

[keaggy220]

They're not fools. They know exactly what they're getting. Face it, guy, they compromised, and very sensibly too.

In their minds I don't think they believe they compromised one bit, so I don't buy that. Look how insistent and specific they were about the exact wording of the order and the needing of assurances and so forth.

The abortion thing is a charade - merely a delay... Stupak and his buddies just want a little cover from the voters.

Let's face it - half or more of the dems in the house campaigned as moderates or blue dog conservatives - they didn't campaign for taking over 1/6 of the economy against the publics will.

[Corlyss_D]

But to get back to the burden of my exchange with Randall, since, as you indicated, what we faced already was a continuation of current policy which effectively bans federal funding for abortion, why the heck were those guys holding things up in the hopes of getting something supposedly even more strict? Not that it matters now, but I was addressing Randall's unfounded concern that the Dems are somehow going to lift the ban.

There's lots of noise in the ether about what is and isn't true about the bill. Under the circumstances that the Stupak Otriad collapsed after such a great show of opposition on principle, I have to conclude it was just that, a show. Typical of Washington, and also typical political theater for the folks back home. It could have been they were genuinely confused about it, just as so many are confused about the application of the benefits to illegal aliens. I don't know what the current language says, but a few months ago, the rabble were saying the law would apply to illegals as well as American citizens. Then the leadership made a big show of putting a prohibition into the bill that it would not apply to illegals. But constitutional lawyers allowed as how such prohibitions against illegals benefiting from social legislation have never survived a court challenge for violation of the 14th amendment, and this one wouldn't either. The allegation was that with Obama being a constitutional lawyer and with so many lawyers being involved in the writing, they knew perfectly well the bill would eventually apply to illegals, language or no, so they weren't giving up anything by putting in the prohibition. I believe the latter are probably correct, but since I don't know how the federal funding plays out with regard to illegals, I don't know for sure. We'll just have to wait for SCOTUS to tell us.

You are apparently interpreting the government's interventions following the 2008 crash as a deliberate and planned attempt to socialize the industries that were kept alive with government money. That is a just plain unsupportable way of interpreting events.

I don't believe that on your, or any other liberals, say so. If the goal of a state-managed economy devoted to redistribution and "social and economic justice," they are well on their way to getting it.

Taking over the car companies in order to put Toyota out of business?

No. They took over the car companies to save the Detroit unions. They capitalized on, not created, Toyota's PR disaster for the benefit of what is widely derided as Government Motors which is now the wholly owned subsidiary of the UAW thanks to me and you. If the UAW had crashed and burned, as it justly merits, politics for the Dems would have become very difficult. And don't tell me the Bush administration did it when the Dems were a principal component of the Bailout strategy.

Manufacturing or at least manipulating the acceleration problem to make matters worse?

Now you're engaging in silly strawmen just so you can say the strawman is unworthy of me. Of course it is, but I didn't create it.

[jbuck919]

You are apparently interpreting the government's interventions following the 2008 crash as a deliberate and planned attempt to socialize the industries that were kept alive with government money. That is a just plain unsupportable way of interpreting events.

I don't believe that on your, or any other liberals, say so. If the goal of a state-managed economy devoted to redistribution and "social and economic justice," they are well on their way to getting it.

I don't expect you to "believe" it on anybody's say-so. I expect any reasonable person to see that it is complete nonsense that the Democrats have a state-managed economy in mind, or that they have managed anything on more than a partial and emergency basis (in the case of big finance, the "managed" entities seem in fact to have gotten the better of the political ones and I might add the people at the same time). A liberal version of this would be believing that Bush started Iraq like some petty dictator, to distract the people from domestic problems. And even that false assessment has the virtue of getting cause-and-effect right if not intent; your notion doesn't even have that going for it.

[Corlyss_D]

You are apparently interpreting the government's interventions following the 2008 crash as a deliberate and planned attempt to socialize the industries that were kept alive with government money. That is a just plain unsupportable way of interpreting events.

I don't believe that on your, or any other liberals, say so. If the goal of a state-managed economy devoted to redistribution and "social and economic justice," they are well on their way to getting it.

I don't expect you to "believe" it on anybody's say-so. I expect any reasonable person to see that it is complete nonsense that the Democrats have a state-managed economy in mind, or that they have managed anything on more than a partial and emergency basis

I said they were well on their way to it, not that it had been fully accomplished yet. No reasonable or informed person would believe the results were not their intent when the results just happen to coincide with the goals of community organizers raised on the Alinsky model.