Dems look at 'bypassing' health care vote

[SteamWake]

BOSTON (AP) - A panicky White House and Democratic allies scrambled Sunday for a plan to salvage their hard-fought health care package in case a Republican wins Tuesday's Senate race in Massachusetts, which would enable the GOP to block further Senate action.


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100118/D9D9U7Q80.html

[August]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100118/D9D9U7Q80.html

I don't understand all this hoopla about getting a 60 vote majority. Neither parties MoCs act in lockstep on anything. There are several democrats who will vote no and a couple of republicans who will vote yes, not to mention tossing a few independents into the mix who could go either way. There are even a couple of turncoats.

[SteamWake]

I don't understand all this hoopla about getting a 60 vote majority. Neither parties MoCs act in lockstep on anything. There are several democrats who will vote no and a couple of republicans who will vote yes, not to mention tossing a few independents into the mix who could go either way. There are even a couple of turncoats.

Well thats the way it 'should' be actually.

One has to ask why, if the dems had a majority, have they not passed this legislation already?

But more so than just busting the majority 60% if Brown gets elected it will be a clear shot accross the liberal agenda and there may be even more 'turncoats'.

Here is an insightfull opinion piece from the MOP


Not only could Democrats lose health care reform if Martha Coakley loses, they could also lose their majority, says Bronx Rep. Eliot Engel.

And that’s why, if Coakley goes down, you can expect a rush to get the bill through.
“I’m telling you, Massachusetts, if it goes wrong, is going to be a big catalyst to push a vote,” said Bronx Rep. Eliot Engel, who is among many in the House frustrated with how long the Senate took.



http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/01/if-coakley-loses-fast-forward.html

[August]

They're going to loose their majority next year anyways regardless of who wins tomorrow. If they rush the bill through and play delaying games confirming Browns appointment it will just be another nail in their coffin.

[Platapus]

I don't understand all this hoopla about getting a 60 vote majority.

Exactly it is just something that both parties use to get people spun up.

Having 60 senators of one party won't prevent a filibuster. Nothing can prevent a filibuster. A vote of 60 is needed to invoke cloture which will end an existing filibuster after two days of further debate.

It takes any 60 senators, they don't have to be of the same party. So any political party who has 60 is not guaranteed to be able to invoke cloture.

Remember that a filibuster means that NO senate business (other than budgetary issues) can proceed.

Many senators, regardless of political party, will vote for cloture simply based on their dislike of the concept of filibuster.

What really sucks is that under the current rules of the Senate, it is only necessary to declare a filibuster. There is no longer a requirement for any senator to actively participate in the filibuster. Under the 1975 senate rules it only takes 41 Senators to declare a filibuster. This really needs to change. If there is less than 41 supporting it, the old rules of talking take place.

But in any case, a political party with 60 senators is not guaranteed success at invoking cloture and a political party with less than 60 is not not guaranteed to fail at cloture.

Much ado about nutton. :nope:

[SteamWake]

But in any case, a political party with 60 senators is not guaranteed success at invoking cloture

No but it makes it alot easier ;)

[Platapus]

The "Nuclear Option" is available to both sides :)

[CaptainHaplo]

The "nuclear" option is at this point trying to push this through in reconciliation - and that is one choice that could REALLY blow up in the Dem's face. In fact, that would be the likely outcome if they try. If Cokely loses tomorrow - health care reform may die - and that would be good for the country.

[MothBalls]

I know this is a stupid idea and will never happen, but wouldn't it be nice if..... we were about to propose law that affects every American and a big chunk of our GDP, then we let the people vote and decide. If that bill went before the American people it would get shot down quicker than Cheney's hunting partner.

[Platapus]

I know this is a stupid idea and will never happen, but wouldn't it be nice if..... we were about to propose law that affects every American and a big chunk of our GDP, then we let the people vote and decide. If that bill went before the American people it would get shot down quicker than Cheney's hunting partner.

That would go against the concept of a representative government.

Look around you, do you really really want all the American citizens to decide on these important issues? Most of them can't be bothered to do any research on their own but simply parrot what some commentator tells them.

Like George Carlin said. Think about the Average American. Imagine how dumb he is... and consider that almost half the population is dumber than that.

No thank you, unless I have any expectation that the citizens of the United States can be relied to do the simplest original research, I would rather not trust the masses for important decisions.

That is why I am firmly in favour of republican forms of government instead of democratic forms. For too many Americans their idea of big-picture long-term strategic thinking is the next episode of American Idol.:nope: