Coming Soon? The Ping Pong Nuclear Option

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:32:26 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

As lilburro points out, the new Dem strategem of ping ponging the health bill makes a mockery of the fear of reconciliation as a "nuclear option" politically (see Nate Silver's argument on that point.) Coming soon from the mouths of Republicans near you, ping pong as the new "nuclear option." Jon Cohn writes:

According to a pair of senior Capitol Hill staffers, one from each chamber, House and Senate Democrats are “almost certain” to negotiate informally rather than convene a formal conference committee. [. . .] Whatever form the final discussions take place, a decision to bypass conference would undoubtedly expedite the debate, clearing the way for final passage (if not signing) by the end of January. And, as long as both chambers still get their say, that's a good thing.

I will wait for a procedural expert (Kagro's explanation seems full of holes to me, though this one is better, but still I have questions) to explain how ping ponging will "expedite" the process (my understanding is that actually conference reports are not subject to amendment and only require one cloture vote - a non conference bill would seem to have MORE, not less, procedural hurdles), but I know one thing for sure, ping pong will be the NEW "nuclear option."

Speaking for me only

< Monday Morning Open Thread | Only 3% >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Coming Soon? The Ping Pong Nuclear Option | 35 comments (35 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

well (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Capt Howdy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:39:58 AM EST

at least they have ping pong balls.

: Small (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:07:00 AM EST

White and hollow?

There are a few things I find obnoxious (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by lilburro on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:18:02 AM EST

first of all, people like Ezra, who thought that reconciliation was a horrible way to go about doing healthcare, are now glibly saying that sure the public option could be created later, through reconciliation. Are you telling me this is magically going to get easier after you've hyped up how hard it would be?

Secondly, people like Booman who said the President would swoop in and fight for things like the public option when the bill was in conference. (Here is what Booman said in Sept:)

To get the bill he ran on, he was going to have to make sure that the public option passed on the House side and, since it could not pass on the Senate side, that it be included in the Conference Report. At that point, one of three things would happen.

If the Dems didn't have 60 votes, the Republicans would filibuster and take the blame for obstruction, setting up the argument for using reconciliation.

Seeing the momentum for health care reform, one or two Republicans would vote for cloture and the bill would pass.

If the Dems did have 60 votes, they could muscle the few doubters to vote for cloture, even if they opposed the underlying bill.

Well now that we're at that point that is and was clearly a pipe dream. So the problem was in the way the Senate drafted up its bill and IMO the lack of public support for the public option idea from the President. Things that Obama fans told us were not actually problems. (And don't tell me it was Reid who killed the Super PO Strategy, since it was Obama who was the supposed mastermind of all this).

Well thanks a lot guys.

The thing that gets me about the ping-pong thing is that Republicans are going to scream they weren't involved in the final process. That was one of the things supposedly so terrible about reconciliation. We're willing to exclude Republicans for a mediocre thing going through ping-pong, but not a good thing going through reconciliation? As BTD said a while ago, it would've been better probably if Obama had only 57 or so Senators in the Dem caucus.

: September was apparently a bad (none / 0) (#23)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:27:53 AM EST

prediction making month for Booman.

Nah, they do this all the time (none / 0) (#2)
by andgarden on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:43:52 AM EST

I think Kagro gets it mostly right. Nothing exotic and clearly nothing "nuclear" going on. However, the same could be (and should have been) said about reconciliation.

Do what all the time? (none / 0) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:47:44 AM EST

Avoid conference? Maybe. But my point is if the GOP is intent on obstructing, I am not all clear on how this makes their job harder.

If the House passes a new bill, and then an amendment is introduced to replace the Senate bill with the House Amendment, don't you then have to start the whole amendment process all over again?


What it changes (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:51:13 AM EST

is that the Senate no longer has to have several cloture motions just to get to conference.


And it adds a whole amendment process (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:56:48 AM EST

and DIFFERENT cloture votes.

I do not see the clear benefit. What do they save? 3 days? 6? All for what?

Obama can delay his SOTU for a week and you can avoid all of this.

This seems stupid to me.


It allows them to get a finished product earlier (none / 0) (#6)
by andgarden on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 10:58:28 AM EST

and for the House to vote sooner.


A week sooner? (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:02:58 AM EST

And the big benefit of this is what exactly?

Again, this seems to be about Obama SOTU and as I said, Obama can delay it for a week. What's the big deal?

You have not provided me any substantive reason for doing this, I think it is not particularly good politics so I see this as a stupid move.

No one is going to care if Obama's SOTU is the last week in January of the second week in February.


I really don't see why they shouldn't (none / 0) (#8)
by andgarden on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:03:58 AM EST

if they can. What's the value of a formal conference?

Nobody cares about process. Nobody.


Politics (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:06:12 AM EST

A bunch of "idiot liberals" complaining (none / 0) (#11)
by andgarden on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:10:05 AM EST

about the loss of a process that wouldn't have gotten them anything anyway? Nobody else cares about this.


The Beltway does (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:13:12 AM EST

and "idiot liberals" sounds pretty stupid to me. you seem to be of Chris bowers "only 3%" school.

That type of thinking leads to GOP wave elections.


Honestly, I think what matters (none / 0) (#14)
by andgarden on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:18:18 AM EST

is the substance of the final product, which is likely to be crap anyway. And no, I don't think the beltway will spend much if any time complaining about ping-poing.

The mistakes that could lead to a wave election were likely made months ago.


I tend to think the beltway (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by ruffian on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 12:19:20 PM EST

is so shallow that ALL they like to bloviate about is the procedural stuff, and not the substance. Either way , Dems lose in this case. Crappy bill that the beltway will make a lot of noise about the 'unprecedented' highhandedness in shutting out Republicans. I do agree that the average person doesn't care about ping-pong v conference, until the beltway makes Dems the bad guys.

If they were going to be the bad guys, I just wish they were being bad guys with something better to show for it.


I am sure the Beltway will (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:23:47 AM EST

you could not be more wrong in that call imo.

In fact, they will tie it to the arbitrary SOTU date.

If I was a republican, I could have a field day with this.


: heh, OK (none / 0) (#21)
by andgarden on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:25:02 AM EST

We'll see.

When the media starts talking about the (none / 0) (#15)
by steviez314 on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:19:30 AM EST

"conference report" and people find out that it's not about college basketball, they'll tune out.


And why would people tune in (none / 0) (#16)
by lilburro on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:20:43 AM EST

for reconciliation?

Nobody remembers the Bush tax cuts passed that way.


They might not have..but it's easier for the (none / 0) (#17)
by steviez314 on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:22:24 AM EST

masses to grasp the difference between 50 and 60 (I think).

In any case, that ship has sailed.


: For thee but not for me? (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by lilburro on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:42:57 AM EST

My point is that since reconciliation was not sincerely tried as a strategy with all that would entail, you can't say that it was inherently more risky. Even Conrad was on board in the beginning. And the final vote would probably be like 56-44 or 54-46 anyway.
Dems had better stop poo-pooing reconciliation because they will need it eventually to get stuff done if Republicans win even 1 Senate seat in the upcoming election.

I'm not saying it is a big deal (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:22:44 AM EST

But it is a bigger deal than whether Obama gives the SOTU in the last week of January as opposed to the second week of February.


I think part of this is that they're just tired of (none / 0) (#22)
by steviez314 on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:25:19 AM EST

listening to the Republicans in the Senate bloviate for 3 days with every cloture vote.


: Too bad they weren't tired in July (5.00 / 3) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:39:24 AM EST

when they let Baucus hijack the process.

Yes (none / 0) (#25)
by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:39:33 AM EST

Because the Sunday before is the Super Bowl and the media attention will not be on Obama's greatest State of the Union evah


I just knew someone would discover (none / 0) (#27)
by oculus on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:56:19 AM EST

why moving the SOTU was a fail. Had to be football.


: Well (none / 0) (#28)
by jbindc on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 12:15:02 PM EST

It would distract from the WH Super Bowl party for sure.

Why is it harder for Republicans (none / 0) (#32)
by christinep on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:01:24 PM EST

The only thing I can think of--& it may be central--is that the Republicans are deprived of blathering newspaper comments about anything that would pretend to be about substantive discussions in Conference. Sure, Republicans will say they were shut out...but, by now (with the headlines of movement toward passage before Christmas) it is quite likely that even the press will ignore them (and, most citizens are too busy getting back to work and paying off bills in the weeks immediately following the holidays.) Remembering August and the "platform" of the "town meetings," I think that the option to skirt around the Party of No and move to the finish line makes a lot of sense.


: Addendum (none / 0) (#33)
by christinep on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:13:11 PM EST

I do not usually place bets; but, here I would: IF the House & Senate can agree to move this legislation along in the next few weeks, and IF the legislation is signed into law by the SOTU (or within a day thereof), my only New Year's prediction is that the media will immediately turn--stumbling all over themselves in the pirourette--to narratives of "greatest domestic legislation in decades" and "administrative discripline" to get this legis through where no one has ever gone before <ala Star Trek.> Why? Because, for the most part, I believe that the big newspapers and TV media admire power; and, rather than admit error in failing to foresee that health care legislation would pass, the new theme will become a paean to succeeding at realizing such far-reaching legislation. That's my bet! And, to top it off, it makes for a powerful speech at the SOTU--the biggest platform of the year for a President.

Didn't McConnell object to the appointment of (none / 0) (#18)
by Buckeye on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:22:41 AM EST

conferees?

McConnell would object to the sun coming up (none / 0) (#30)
by ruffian on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 12:22:06 PM EST

if he thought Dems had anything to do with it. Why aren't the Dems saying that loud and clear every chance they get? Afraid to lose his support on the next piece of legislation? Ha!


Is that what is driving the Democrats' actions? (none / 0) (#34)
by Buckeye on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 01:19:59 PM EST

By objecting to the appointment of conferees, does that eliminate the chance for a formal conference committee and conference report?


: Does not eliminate it, just stalls it (none / 0) (#35)
by ruffian on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:05:28 PM EST

until the objections are resolved - not sure if that is by vote or by ruling by the parliamentarian.
Yes, I believe this is just one of the delaying tactics Dems are trying to avoid. I just mean they need to call out exactly what is going on, and not rely on the media to explain to people why they are doing the 'ping-pong'.

Sam Stein on ping pong/conference (none / 0) (#31)
by oculus on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 12:43:44 PM EST

comm.: link

Yes, I know BTD and andgarden already know all of this. Link is for the rest of us.