Yes, I know. The Byrd rule is fairly complex, but it is certainly workable.

Here's one more specifically about Conrad:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/7...for-healthcare

What was it you were saying about paying attention? Keep up, Texie. It is a fast-paced world out there.

Apparently too fast-paced for you. That "one more specifically about Conrad" is the exact link I gave you in the post you were just quoting.

I think we may be talking about the same thing, but I'm not sure. I'm trying to be as clear as I can here ... try making a good-faith effort to understand even if my word choice doesn't meet lawyerly standards, just for once, eh?

Here's the process I was referring to:

House passes current Senate bill in its entirety, no changes. Senate subsequently passes a new (2nd) bill via reconciliation to amend the 1st bill, and appease House Dems who object to the 1st. House then passes 2nd bill.

That's what I called the "pass it in the House first, then amend it with reconciliation" or "we'll fix it later" approach. Perhaps using the word "later" is misleading because it implies a lot of time.

Either way, I don't think that option is going to fly. It will look so nakedly partisan, I don't think nervous Dems are going to go along with it. I guarantee you the American public won't. It's tantamount to outright cheating.

Can you honestly flip the R's and the D's and not say you'd feel the same way in reverse?

No, not quite.

Senate already passed its bill. Senate then passes reconciliation bill (with 51 votes). That bill incorporates changes agreed to between House and Senate. House then passes reconciliation bill (so there is no threat they get jilted). House then passes Senate bill. Both go to the President. President first signs Senate bill, then seconds later signs reconciliation bill.

There is nothing "cheating" about the process. Republicans certainly weren't shy about using reconciliation in the past (including for the Bush tax cuts, as you may recall), and it is no more "nakedly partisan" than filibustering every single thing presented by Democrats in the Senatee (what happened to the party who fought for an "up or down vote?").

Ok, so we really are discussing two options. You're advocating a parallel process, while what I'm hearing is a distinct two-separate-bills-one-after-the-other approach. And in fact, that's the "option 2" in one of the links you posted, which funny enough they refer to as "fix it later."

As I said previously, I don't hear anyone suggesting the course that you just described. And I think it would be political suicide. Do you not see how nakedly partisan that would look?

I do believe Obama/Pelosi are that suicidal, especially because neither one of them has a re-election to worry about (Pelosi's not in trouble). But I'll be damned if they can get a majority of skittish House Democrats (or maybe even Senators) to commit suicide with them.

Just saw that you added this, so I'll add a response.

You're distracting from the issue. What the R's did is not going to be relevant to how the public views this particular instance. Polling shows the public hates the health care bill and sent a message via Scott Brown that they want it stopped. They're not going to bend over cheerfully just because you think the R's might've abused reconciliation in the past (which, by the way, is up for debate).

As for the "up or down vote", you know as well as I do that argument was limited to judicial appointees. Legislation can be carved up, rewritten, and compromised on. An individual cannot. Total red herring.

Scroll down a bit more in the link you just posted (where it quotes TNR). This is being discussed quite a bit.

There is nothing "nakedly partisan" about passing health care. Don't forget, the public elected 60 Democratic votes to the US Senate, 258 votes to the House, and elected a Democrat as president for a reason- one of which was to pass health care. There have been a total of 3 congressional elections since the Democrats' resounding victory in 2008- Dems went 2-1 in those elections. If you add in gubernatorial elections to the mix, they have gone 2-3. The public has demanded healthcare reform for a long time and continues to do so. The Dems have the power to do it. They ought to, and I expect they will. The fact that Republicans are nothing more than pure obstructionists now doesn't mean Democrats can't use the process to circumvent Republican obstructionism. Republicans are using the process to shut the government down, Democrats can use the process to get it moving again.

If politics is your objection, Democrats absolutely must pass health care. If you think they are concerned about passing a bill, wait until you see how concerned they are if they don't (which would most certainly end many of their careers- far more careers than if the bill passes).

It sounds like you are using the word "cheating" not in terms of what Democrats are doing, but in terms of how it will be perceived? See above for my comments on the politics of passing healthcare reform. There isn't anything debatable about Republican use of reconciliation. They have used it to avoid filibusters in the past. I don't imagine it gave you heartburn back then.

Republicans have also complained about no "up or down vote" in multiple instances involving bills (rather than judicial nominees). Your claim is simply not true. A quick google search reveals the following (some of the links in the blog below don't work, but you can do a google search for Frist's quotes and find those very quickly too):

http://www.ourrepublicblog.com/2006/...eatens-to.html

You're conflating all kinds of facts to form a very contorted picture.

It's not about whether the public wants health care (they say they do), but whether they want this version. Take a look at this Daily Kos chart:

http://cdn.nationalreview.com/dest/2...aa24962a8f.jpg

Citing a bunch of irrelevant non-nationalized races is just watering down the evidence. Voters sent a pretty clear message in NJ/VA and the Dems didn't listen, so they sent a stronger one in MA. It appears some of them are sitting up and taking notice, even if you (and the Dem leadership) isn't.

And of course it's nakedly partisan. Or would you care to name a single non-Democrat who's going to vote for this mess? And yes, I'm using the term "cheating" in the sense of how it would be perceived.

I'm not sure which would be worse for them politically, passing nothing, or passing this hugely unpopular monstrosity. Certainly, it doesn't leave them with many options.

I don't want to splinter this thread with essentially a brand new topic. We can kick off another to debate alleged Republican reconciliation/filibuster abuse, if you wish. But as it pertains to health care, Republican behavior in the past is going to be completely irrelevant, and it sounds like Dems are slowly wizening up to that.

If the Dems end up using your model to pass health care (2 bills at the exact same time), I'll change my avatar to a pro-Obama picture of your choice for a week.

So even after all the lies and demagoguery, still over 40% wants this version? Not bad. Not bad at all.

So we shouldn't cite irrelevant non-nationalized races? I think that's what your next sentence just did.

So when Dems all vote for health care, which they were elected to Congress to do, that is "nakedly partisan," but when 100% of Republicans oppose it...


Hard to argue it is a "hugely unpopular monstrosity" when the poll you cited shows over 40% support it. Passing nothing is a disaster. Passing this is progress.

You're on.

*shrug* Maybe, maybe not. But it's not enough to pass it.

Obviously it's subjective, but I can think of 4 races since Nov '08 that were effectively nationalized, by which I mean a large number of votes were based on national issues, not just local. They are: NJ, VA, MA, and NY-23.

I think those are easy cases to make. If you'd like to make a case that some of those other races you mentioned were also nationalized, feel free to try.

To me, partisan essentially means "breaks on party lines." It doesn't matter if it's R's or D's, if only one party votes for it, it's partisan. Generally it's pejorative, but it doesn't have to be. In this case, I think it definitely is.

VA and NJ exit polls showed support for Obama and health care reform. Those races were expressly local, certainly not national. There have been three "national" races by definition- CA House, NY House and MA Senate. Dems went 2-1 in those three. As far as relevance to health care goes, none of them were decided because of health care or Obama (other than arguably CA House, but it was going pro-Dem anyways).

Of course, you also had Specter switch parties based on his feedback in PA.

Abandoning health care would be a collosal mistake, particularly if it is based on what people incorrectly think was being sent as a message. Which is why they won't abandon it.