home

Reconciliation

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:08:37 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Are we learning yet?

“For the final vote," says Evan Bayh, "I see no distinction between substance and procedure.” That is to say, if he decides to vote against the bill, he'll also vote against breaking a filibuster.

How about now?

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin isn't inflating anybody's expectations about Harry Reid's chances for passing a health care bill with a public option on the Senate floor. On MSNBC last night, Durbin said it would be a hard slog. "We're working on it, struggling," he said.

I think the real question is what form of a health care reform bill can garner 50 votes in the Senate and 218 votes in the House via the reconciliation process. Regular order is dead. Maybe the Village will start dealing with that reality soon.

Speaking for me only

< U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan Out, Regrets Tommy Chong Plea | 2nd Circuit: Affirms Lawyer Lynne Stewart 's Terrorism Conviction, Revokes Bail >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Reconciliation | 31 comments (31 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Can we just have Schumer run this already? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:17:51 AM EST


    Feingold says that's who will run it (none / 0) (#9)
    by Cream City on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 01:17:30 PM EST
    as floor manager of the bill.  Went to a Feingold talk last weekend, and he gave assurances that the Dems were going to put this in Schumer's hands (i.e., gave assurances in that Feingold also has a lot of faith in Schumer's ability, if anyone can do this).

    I also asked him about Stupak-Pitts.  It was interesting. . . .

    Parent

    That is excellent news (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 01:22:50 PM EST
    Schumer is one of the most successful political strategists in America.

    Parent
    Yes. That word got applause in the room (none / 0) (#12)
    by Cream City on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 01:28:13 PM EST
    as it was a room full of savvy CSpan watchers.:-)

    Parent
    And? (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 01:30:57 PM EST
    I also asked him about Stupak-Pitts.  


    Parent
    And no time to get to this today (none / 0) (#19)
    by Cream City on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 04:11:52 PM EST
    and I didn't see an apropos post this weekend, at least not since the Feingold event. . . .  But if Stupak-Pitts comes up again, and I'm free to comment (in time as well as in other factors), will do.  

    Back to grading I go before the late class. :-)

    Parent

    Stupak's already making noises (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:52:45 AM EST
    that he won't vote for any bill that does not have the Stupak/Pitts amendment in it, and he claims there are 10-15-20 other House members who would also not vote for a bill without the amendment.

    Bluff, bluster, hot air?  Maybe.  It got the amendment this far - if he has enough votes, and it's all that is keeping the final bill from passing...heck, even if he doesn't have the votes, the leadership will give him something that will make him happy - we've seen this show before.

    I almost can't stand to watch anymore; it's just so, so bad.

    Bayh's not the problem. That quote was from 3 (none / 0) (#2)
    by steviez314 on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:34:58 AM EST
    weeks ago and he walked it back very fast.

    Nelson and Holy Joe are the 2 likely problems.

    I wonder if anyone has talked to the Parliamentarian yet, even informally.  If so, it sure hasn't leaked out.

    If they decide to go the reconciliation route (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:44:01 AM EST
    the Parliamentarian need only get a talking-to--if he values his job, anyway.

    Parent
    The problem (none / 0) (#5)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 12:51:10 PM EST
    from what I read, is that this is an absolutely stinko bill.
    Kucinich couldn't even vote for it.

    So how am I supposed to feel if the Republicans kill it?
    Outrage, or indifference?

    Kucinich? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 12:56:52 PM EST
    Kucinich has purity-trolled every single piece of major Democratic legislation, voting no because it's not good enough in his opinion.  He should hardly be your litmus test one way or the other.

    Parent
    Yup, he is out of the discussion (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 01:08:46 PM EST
    because nobody thinks it would be possible to satisfy him. A tactical error on his part.

    Parent
    I do not think that that is accurate at all. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 04:31:05 PM EST
    Kucinich and others like him generally emerge - and get noticed - when a bill is going too far off the rails - where compromise has gone too far.  He is trying to shape the debate and in a way has accomplished a bit more balance for the more liberal perspective.  I am not his biggest fan for a number of reasons, but the liberal wing of our party has often taken the tack of acquiessing and have as a result ceded groud that they really did not always have to.  Drawing a line in the sand is a good thing.  I wish more Democrats were inclined to do so.  We might actually get quality work-product out of Congress if there were more people who had the guts to set and stick to standards.

    Parent
    What has Kucinich accomplished? (none / 0) (#22)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 04:49:09 PM EST
    Rep. Weiner is doing a good job of shaping the debate, but Kucinich hasn't done much at all, as far as I can tell.

    Parent
    They have both come at it from (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 05:02:03 PM EST
    different angles, but I think they both have had an impact.  We are talking about both of them aren't we?

    There is a story about Clinton calling Bernie Sanders years ago after he was pushed rightward on some bill where he asked Sanders why he didn't make more of a stink.  If the progressives sit quietly by, then those on the right have much more power.

    Is it "better" for various reasons when Weiner talks about single payer than when Kucinich does?  Yes, probably.  But that doesn't mean that either should stop talking.

    Parent

    Kucinich (none / 0) (#17)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 03:43:37 PM EST
    Kucinich is purity driven because he believes that single-payer is the way to go. Simple and universal.

    This bill is not simple. It is not comprehensive and it is not universal. And it has this horrendous Stupak amendment attached to it. To me this amendment would be on the order of a healthcare bill offered in the 1950's that placated Southern "Dixiecrats" by allowing individual States to allow "White" hospitals to deny treatment to "Colored" people.

    Obama once declared himself to be in favor of single-payer.
    That was before he felt he had something to lose.

    But why is it wrong for Kucinich to vote against this thing?

    Are you one of those who feels that it is OK to pass this and expect or hope that it will be fixed somewhere down the line?
    I respect that point of view, but I don't share it.
    These things never get fixed.

    Another way of looking at this is that we could have single-payer and pay for it if we could just bring ourselves to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, we are asked to settle for this hodgepodge Pharma-Bonanza discriminatory mess.

    Just MHO.

    Parent

    Well hey (none / 0) (#18)
    by Steve M on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 03:58:45 PM EST
    You can oppose the bill if you want.  I don't have a problem with that.  But don't use Dennis Kucinich as your excuse, as if he's a perfectly reasonable guy who would surely vote for any reasonable health care bill.  The fact is, he voted against the Democratic energy bill too, because it supposedly wasn't good enough.  He's well known for these purity-troll antics.  If you won't support any Democratic legislation until it gets the Kucinich Seal of Approval, you won't be supporting much legislation.

    Two other points.  First, it's pretty ironic to see Kucinich portrayed as this staunch defender of a woman's right to choose when the guy was one of the most anti-choice Democrats in Congress right up until the day he decided to run for the Democratic presidential nomination.  That's great that he votes the right way now on abortion.  But it's amazing to see people with no knowledge of his history characterize him as some deeply principled progressive.

    Second, before we start imagining hypothetical racist health care bills from the 1950s (instead of getting a compromise like that, we got no health care bill at all, which was obviously far superior), let's talk about a bill that actually did pass, the Social Security Act of 1935.  The original Social Security Act had all kinds of exclusions designed to get racist Southerners to vote for the bill.  Numerous sectors of the workforce that tended to attract nonwhite individuals, like agricultural workers and hotel workers, were excluded from Social Security specifically to placate the racists.  Not only does Social Security remain the signature progressive legislative accomplishment today, but no one even remembers the fact that this racist crap was once upon a time in the bill.  So people should learn a little history before claiming that we all would have been a bunch of principled Kuciniches back in the day.

    Parent

    And if a discriminatory Social Security (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by Cream City on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 04:19:38 PM EST
    bill like that came up today, it would be dead.  It would not even come up, owing to some laws and  court decisions of import since, as lawyers might know, regarding such discrimination on race and ethnicity.  Not to mention that the Dems today need those votes desperately, while the transition of AAs from the GOP still was in process in 1935 -- those AAs in the North, so they could vote.

    The Dems also were not as reliant on the votes of women then -- another group appallingly left out of Social Security by and large, as well as most of the New Deal -- as we did not start voting proportionate to our share of the population until the 1950s.

    It's a different time today, and the Dems need women, male AAs, etc.  All that political expediency aside, do the Dems really want to go down in history as the party that even would attempt discrimination again on the order of the original Social Security law?  Really?  Does Obama want that to be on his record, too?  Really?  Don't think so.

    Parent

    Moreover, the exclusions determined (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 05:40:34 PM EST
    to be necessary to the passage of social security in 1935 seem to be of a different character than the exclusion of Stupak/Pitts.  To achieve the support of racist southerners (and indifferent northerners) the status quo was nursed, in keeping in large measure, with the laws of the time. Voting and civil rights acts would await a future era.  Stupak/Pitts is regressive in that it does not recognize what is  and has been the law of the land for over thirty years.  Indeed, it undermines hard earned rights of choice for women's health. Maybe a more illustrative way of assessing the concern of Stupak/Pitts would be if to achieve passage, the bill yielded to anti-miscegenation hold-outs, by not providing federal funding for women in mixed marriages.

    Parent
    Civil Rights for AAs and Abortion Rights for women (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Politalkix on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 10:32:54 PM EST
    are not comparable issues. Civil rights advocates won the moral argument during their fight to end discrimination based on race and ethnicity while abortion rights advocates lost the moral argument during their successful quest to legalize abortion. Even HRC mentioned that she wants to keep abortion legal, safe and rare. OTOH, can any person in their right mind say that nondiscrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity be rare events and not the norm?
    Pursuing gender equality through abortion rights is an effort based on a fallacious argument (IMO) and is not without its pitfalls. The fight for gender equality should be pursued through other means like equal pay, equal opportunities in education and work, etc.
    If an argument is made that every woman (just as every individual) should have the sole right to decide what should be done to her body, the correct analogy, IMO, to abortion rights is the right to pursue euthanasia (though it is not legal in the United States); civil rights for AAs and other races is a wrong comparison.

    Parent
    You have it back@sswards (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Spamlet on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 11:41:49 PM EST
    Pursuing gender equality through abortion rights is an effort based on a fallacious argument (IMO) and is not without its pitfalls. The fight for gender equality should be pursued through other means like equal pay, equal opportunities in education and work, etc.

    First, unwanted and/or involuntary pregnancy has always been and continues to be a condition that is exploited specifically to keep women "in their place"--out of school, out of the workplace, and, quite often, dead from complications encountered in pregnancy and childbirth.

    Second, now that American women have made some advances in terms of protection for their civil rights--partly because their lives are no longer always automatically determined by their reproductive biology--there is a ferocious and concerted effort by regressive forces to reverse that progress. The strategy is to do so by forcing "uppity" women back into reproductive servitude. Denial of access not just to abortion but also to birth control and sex education is a key tactic within that strategy.

    If you don't know that, then you're not, IMO, in a position to comment on anyone else's "moral argument."

    Parent

    Show legal standing and get a warrant (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Ellie on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:38:23 AM EST
    ... because whether or not anyone "won" or "lost" a moral argument on what is a legal medical procedure does not trump women's right to unimpeded access, private counsel, a safe procedure and not to be harangued and exploited by political voyeurs before or afterwards.

    Otherwise, have a safe, legal morality debate at the Socratic Cave.

    And it's not for SoS Clinton to decide, arbitrarily, how many is enough, either.

    Parent

    Healthcare bill (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 04:56:21 PM EST
    I did not use Kucinich as my "excuse".
    I simply said that I could see why someone who sees "single payer" as the only correct way to go would vote against it.

    I did not write that Kucinich opposed it because of Stupak.

    I did say that the inclusion of this amendment is truly offensive to me. I react to it the way I would if a racist clause had been attached to it.

    I did not know the history of the Social Security Act that you mentioned. I infer from what you wrote that it is your contention that the current healthcare bill is good enough - and the Stupak amendment will be rescinded and forgotten at some time in the future.

    I respect your opinion.

    But personally, I wouldn't vote for this thing.

    Parent

    Just remember (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by hookfan on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 06:03:26 PM EST
    on the golf course green of congress for the last 30 years the ball always breaks to the right. That's why Stupak is "principled" when he's uncompromising, and gets what he wants. But Kucinich is a nut when he's principled and doesn't help get passed watered down bills he wouldn't vote for anyway. See, by definition the left is always to compromise and start in the hole and demonstrate they are really unprincipled. Probably cause they represent normal people. But the right is never to compromise, and always start ahead, and demonstrate they are inflexibly principled. Probably cause they represent corporations. Since Nixon, who's been getting more of what they want?

    Parent
    The left - "unprincipled"? (none / 0) (#30)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 04:13:32 AM EST
    See, by definition the left is always to compromise and start in the hole and demonstrate they are really unprincipled.

    I'm not sure if this was a typo - but writing that the left is really unprincipled is what I am beginning to believe. If they have principles, they don't seem to feel that they are worthing fighting for.

    Look what we have accepted as a progressive administration:
    Obama and Biden at the helm. The former who can't express that gay people should have the same rights as other Americans because, he says, of his "religious beliefs". Two obnoxious tenets in one: denying civil rights to one group of Americans and blending religion and politics. This man also voted for the Patriot Act renewal and FISA as we all know. But the left held fast to him. That was the time to threaten to abandon him and search for someone, even a seemingly lost cause, who would represent our views. Excuse after excuse was made for him. He would be different once elected. He was secretly progressive. After all, he had been a "community organizer". Some liberals also wrote that he had to be somewhat conservative because of his race. He had gotten far, but now he had to tread lightly.

    Biden, as we all know, was an affront to people interested in civil liberties. The left, after a brief (very brief) fit of gagging, took a deep breath and accepted him as their standard bearer.

    The reason for all this is fear. Fear of the opposition. Fear of McCain and Palin. And also they are not sure that the right is not right after all about the danger posed to us by ever shifting enemies - both foreign and domestic.

    This is where the argument gets dicey. Palin is clearly off the wall, although I will admit I don't find her as detestable as many.The treatment she is getting from media such Newsweek turns my stomach.  McCain was sounding unbalanced. But realistically, I'm not sure that McCain might not have been the one to end the war in Iraq. No one would question him. Like Nixon "opening" China. If the goal of the left was to end the war, perhaps they could have been a little more savvy instead of genuflecting to the image they allowed to be made of Obama.

    That's it. The left has no clearly stated goals.
    If they want a restoration of civil liberties, they should demand the rescission of the Patriot Act.
    If they want peace, they should insist on a candidate who would say, "I will end the war as soon as I take office".
    If they want civil rights, they should be insisting on equal treatment for all Americans under the law.

    But they insist on nothing.

    Parent

    If it dies, it will be at the hands of (5.00 / 12) (#8)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 01:09:22 PM EST
    Democrats like Stupak, who is starting to pout and is threatening to kill the final bill if it doesn't have his precious amendment attached to it.

    What I wanted the Democrats to fight for was strong and meaningful reform that would expand access to and affordability of care, while reining in the out-of-control insurance companies and drug companies.

    What they chose to do is pay lip service to reform, cuddle up with their corporate masters and pretend that having insurance was the answer to the problems of access and affordability.

    They wasted their majority, spent too much time indulging the Stupaks and Liebermans, and while we have not seen a Senate bill, and there's been no conference yet, it isn't hard to see where this is heading.  The horses have left the barn, and they're not coming back - leaving the manure behind for all of those who think that's almost like actually owning a horse.

    Parent

    Good summation (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 01:25:58 PM EST
    I would like to believe that they have either the will or the guts to push meaningful measures through via reconciliation, but this just is not the Congress that is going to do that.

    Having 50 votes in favor of something is not the same as having 50 votes willing to go the reconciliation route.

    Parent

    First, you would have to have (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 01:45:49 PM EST
    meaningful measures to push through, and since they started from somewhere south of meaningful and kept going in a downhill direction, there was never any possibility that "meaningful" would be the adjective that comes to mind when describing the reform effort.

    I fail to see the point of expending huge amounts of political capital on reconciliation in order to push this mess through, but others, I know, disagree.

    Parent

    Point taken (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 02:03:59 PM EST
    I don't think they will do anything at all through reconciliation, so I'm not even going to try to plumb the depths of the meaninglessness of what they hypothetically might do it they were 535 different people.

    Parent
    Or a pony (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Spamlet on Tue Nov 17, 2009 at 03:21:14 PM EST
    The horses have left the barn, and they're not coming back - leaving the manure behind for all of those who think that's almost like actually owning a horse.


    Parent
    Purity trolls (none / 0) (#31)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 09:41:38 AM EST
    Are you one of those who feels that it is OK to pass this and expect or hope that it will be fixed somewhere down the line?
    I respect that point of view, but I don't share it.
    These things never get fixed.

    Agreed 1000%. Kucinich knows that this thing stinks to high heaven, that's why he's not voting for it. It's too bad Obama isn't more of a "purity troll," because see where abandoning "purity" has left us.

    If an argument is made that every woman (just as every individual) should have the sole right to decide what should be done to her body, the correct analogy, IMO, to abortion rights is the right to pursue euthanasia

    Funny how no man has to equate his right to bodily autonomy to euthanasia. Yes, funny that.

    Reconciliation | 31 comments (31 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment