When The Village Dems Opposed Reconciliation

Glenn Greenwald with a great catch:

[B]ack in mid-January, a mere six weeks ago, Grayson went on Hardball and advocated that the Democrats pass health care reform through reconciliation, which would enable them to avoid a GOP filibuster. But back then, all Serious People (i.e., dutiful Party Loyalists) insisted that the mere suggestion was crazy [. . .] Now that Party Leaders have embraced reconciliation, it's been magically and instantly transformed from Crazy Fringe Loser Talk into Serious, Sane, Responsible Advocacy -- all within a matter of weeks.

The Serious Person/Party Loyalist Glenn links to is, of course, Nate Silver, who wrote:

Nor have we discussed the political fallout from using reconciliation, which in my view could be enormous [. . .] [T]he downside risk would seem to be fairly profound -- as in, I'd take even money at that point that the Democrats would lose the House.

One would expect that Silver would be screaming his opposition to using reconciliation now. Yes, the sound you are hearing is crickets.

Speaking for me only

< Can A Health Bill Get Passed? | Thursday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    "I was against reconciliation (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:26:17 PM EST
    before I was for it."

    With unlimited amendments (none / 0) (#61)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 07:09:18 PM EST

    With unlimited amendments one wonders how long it will take to read and vote on each of 17,649,312 amendments.

    According to this article, (none / 0) (#62)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 07:41:48 PM EST
    Biden can short-circuit any dilatory amendments.


    But, it is interesting to know what the Republicans' strategy is....


    17,649,312 (none / 0) (#69)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 08:07:09 PM EST
    17,649,312  rulings will take a while.

    Tweety (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:34:33 PM EST
    You missed a good clip with that one.  Tweety was irate.  He was nearly screaming at Grayson... You Can't Use Reconciliation!!!!  You can't do it!  I was on the hill and you can't do it!  Prove you can do it! You can't do it!  You Can't Use Reconciliation!!!!!  It still makes me laugh.  Grayson was a little stunned.

    you are going to get (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:45:55 PM EST
    a reputation if you keep revealing you watch MSNBC.

    I saw that.  I was cheering.  


    Wilderness (none / 0) (#6)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:53:00 PM EST
    I took a break to wander in the wilderness for awhile and have been watching the cable corporate hackey television channels again.  I change to the SciFi channel when a Repub comes on or one of CNN's 'strategists' (hardy har,har)  Deficit! Deficit! gets me to change the channel too.

    Tweety was demonstrating his nickname that day, advancing every !! with spit.  I swear he was visibly sweating before it was over.


    Tweety, Tweety, (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 02:04:22 PM EST
    defended Senator Bunning against criticism by his guest David Corn (who claimed Bunning to be erratic) by recalling that Bunning was a great pitcher for the Phillies, after all.  And, Tweety and his wife see him at church and he is a nice guy.   How is that for news analysis and commentary?

    The Village in a nutshell (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 04:01:31 PM EST
    Sounds like village punditry to me .... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by bridget on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 07:55:53 PM EST

    everyone is a nice guy
    and everyone wants to belong to the club
    example: David Corn who he has come a long way from the 90s

    I have actually been (none / 0) (#9)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:57:10 PM EST
    considering doing a youtube parody of that promo he does where he talks about "catching people"

    we have some great makeup people here.


    oh please do! (none / 0) (#78)
    by DFLer on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 05:39:53 PM EST
    his attitude is awful.

    LOL (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 02:04:00 PM EST
    You're making me think he missed his calling and should be on the comedy club circuit. After their embrace of George W. Bush in 2000, I think they're all a bunch of wankers.

    Sure, but Tweety's Tweety (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 06:04:40 PM EST
    Just as, apparently, Silver is Silver. I mean, straight from "The Department Of How Stupid Do They Think We Are?"

    Well, now he's in the "do whatever (none / 0) (#7)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:54:01 PM EST
    it takes" camp - which is kind of funny actually.

    I'm not sure why there is any confusion. (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:57:40 PM EST
    The rules state that reconciliation cannot be used to pass any legislation that can be construed as progressive. :-)

    Now more tax cuts for the rich and (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 02:07:02 PM EST
    giant multi-national corporations, OTOH, those can be addressed through reconciliation.  But they wouldn't need to use reconciliation by the looks of this particular Senate.  Those would not be challenged by the opposition or the ConservaDems.

    So, if that's the rule... (none / 0) (#49)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 06:05:29 PM EST
    ... ObamaCare should sail right on through!

    Naw, they are stalling passage until they (none / 0) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 06:11:39 PM EST
    can add all of the Republican's  proposals to the reconciliation bill.

    What's really interesting (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 03:09:21 PM EST
    Is the fact that the American public, when polled on individual items in a progressive, inclusive health care bill, are overwhelmingly for each item. But when asked, "are you for, or against, a progressive bill, they answer with a resounding, NO!"

    Doesn't our "brilliant, political genius, President know how to sell anything?

    p.s.......hint (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 03:11:37 PM EST
    not one in a hundred voters know what "Reconciliation " even is.

    Well I'm sure (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by cawaltz on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 03:25:32 PM EST
    since the Democrats couldn't frame an argument to save their lives and the Republicans own them constantly on this that before long the publc will know reconciliation as "that communist plot meant to thwart democracy and foist government health care upon everyone."

    Coming soon.....


    My point... (none / 0) (#23)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 03:58:11 PM EST

    I mean, it was such an easy sell, the timing was perfect, the voters spoke loud and clear, armed with all the weapons, and not a breeze, but a typhoon, of good will of support at his back......

    How, in everything that's sacred, did he screw it up?

    Unless, of course, screwing up was the plan all along.


    What I think will be interesting (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 04:03:00 PM EST
    is that when the bill passes, and nothing happens, voters are going to say "WTF??? You took a year out of our lives  - hearing about this, seeing these political idiots on our TVs every day, watching idiot pundits talk this to death, and now I can't get health insurance until 2016?  Are you f*cking kidding me??"

    THAT should make for some fun election ads and robocalls.


    I don't know (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by cawaltz on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 04:08:14 PM EST
    I think that he expected things to be easier then they are. I think he genuinely thought that if he was inclusive with their thoughts, ideas and opinions they'd come to the table. I have noted that he has been a bit more combative in language with Republicans. I read some of what was said during the summit and found myself nodding to what he said. Obama is a hard person for me to peg down though. He'll be tough during the summit and then next thing you know he's offering to add 4 more of the ideas to the bill. He's all over the board.

    I agree with Gyrfalcon's take; (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by observed on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 04:32:45 PM EST
    Obama is trying to do politics in a different way, by being "reasonable" towards the opposition, to paraphrase.
    As a method of reaching compromise and getting votes from Republicans in Congress, I think the idea is fatally flawed. As a strategy for reelection 2012, it may be good.

    Throwing (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 04:55:35 PM EST
    some of his followers who have outlived their usefulness under the bus may be a necessary evil in hardball politics, but the entire American middle class??

    Could he be THAT cynical?


    It's really not complicated (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 04:35:16 PM EST
    He just has a real problem understanding there's a difference between campaigning.......and legislating.

    It's called e-x-p-e-r-i-e-n-c-e.


    Stop! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 04:40:16 PM EST
    That isn't important - at least for an entry-level job like his.

    Oh, wait.


    that was an insightful comment (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 04:12:31 PM EST
    and I dont think he really expects most of those ideas to be included.

    From the moment when Obama (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 06:04:59 PM EST
    told us that single-payer was just not uniquely American enough, or not practical, and then proceeded to shut single-payer voices out of every step of the process, it should have been obvious that what we were going to be sold was not the "best" solution, or even the "next best thing" solution that would move us to the best, but a variation on what we already had, with insurance industry-approved bones thrown to the little people, and the lions' share of benefit accruing to the very industry that has helped lead us to where we are now.

    That the climate existed among the people to sell what I think of as real reform was obvious, but that's not where Obama really wanted to go.  It's not unlike those situations where one person wants to go to X on vacation, and the other wants to go to Y and the Y person will agree that X sounds great, and says he really likes the idea, and then one day the Y person shows up with non-refundable tickets to Y, but with a nice sauna and a scuba dive thrown in to placate the X person.

    Making concessions to the GOP has played into Obama's hands perfectly, because it is allowing him to look bipartisan while getting even more industry-approved, not people-friendly elements.

    And it's all leading to the next step: cutting entitlements.  That should be a real blast.


    Single payer was never really (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 06:12:50 PM EST
    seriously proposed by anyone.  

    So, yes, it could have been put on the table so to speak, but with everyone from 2008 on saying it was not possible and proposing something entirely different, I am not sure how seriously it would have been considered.  Most would have seen it as a transparent negotiating ploy--and amidst the difficulties of getting any bill through, I wonder how much effort anyone would have wanted to make to pursue what would have clearly been a stalking horse.


    Umm..single payer was proposed by someone (none / 0) (#57)
    by Dan the Man on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 06:36:18 PM EST
    somewhat important here at an AFL-CIO meeting.

    How do we get the Federal government to take care of its business? I happen to be a proponent of a universal single payer health care plan.

    I think the first name of the guy who made that quote starts with a "B"...


    Sure, in 2003 (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 06:48:23 PM EST
    It seems to me it is hard to fault Obama for not proposing single payer when he didn't propose it or campaign on it during the 2008 campaign.  

    No one, except perhaps Kucinich, proposed single payer in 2008.

    So, fault Obama for not keeping campaign promises.  But to fault him for not proposing things he never promised?  To propose single payer, Obama would have had to violate a campaign promise....So to fault Obama for not proposing single payer, you have to fault him for not violating a campaign promise....


    No one was faulting Obama. Someone was faulting (none / 0) (#59)
    by Dan the Man on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 06:57:54 PM EST
    you for saying "Single payer was never really seriously proposed by anyone."  Or are you saying the guy who's first name starts with a "B" was either 1) not serious or 2) is not anyone or 3) was not really proposing it because we just didn't understand what he Really Meant?

    Well, if you look at my comment (none / 0) (#60)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 07:02:11 PM EST
    in context, you will see that I was talking about the 2008 proposals and campaign....

    What Obama campaigned on--in 2008--seems to be the relevant issue, no?  


    I disagree (none / 0) (#73)
    by cawaltz on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 01:30:06 AM EST
    when people are willing to be arrested to present an idea I'd say they are pretty serious about it.

    The simple fact is no one IN WASHINGTON with any clout(poor Kuchinich has been trying forever)took the idea seriously.

    Of course these are also the same people who bailed out the banks without strings. authorized a war without verifying there was an actual credible and immediate threat and a whole host of other things that didn't turn out so good for Americans- you know they were serious ideas though.(shaking head)


    Perhaps if a group in the House (none / 0) (#54)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 06:17:06 PM EST
    had really pushed a single payer bill, the Overton Window could have been moved.  But the dye was cast against the single payer plan long ago....

    The Public Option, however, was a different issue.


    Ding ding ding ding ding! (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 06:06:47 PM EST
    Of course that was the plan. The Dems are the Washington Generals. It's their job to hand the ball back to the Republicans, which they are in the process of doing.

    Do I hear Jackpot? Bingo! (none / 0) (#64)
    by bridget on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 07:44:11 PM EST
    The plan is the corporate takeover of health care. Guess who will enjoy the golden coins? Both parties and the corporations who own them.

    So Anyone who cares to save health care: Fight the Obamacare/Democrats' plans because it has only one goal: to kill Real Health Care.


    We're not talking about. . . (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by RickTaylor on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 04:04:05 PM EST
    We're not talking about passing healthcare via reconciliation, we're talking about using it to amend a bill that has already passed the senate and may pass the house. It's consistent to believe that passing health care reform via reconciliation wouldn't work, while favoring using it to amend a bill, and so reconcile differences between the house and senate.

    Nonetheless, it may have been unwise to discount using reconciliation as a tool in advance; the press can't really handle any argument more complex than "four legs good, two legs bad," so why hand out a club in advance that may be used to bash you later, fair or not?

    Umm (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 05:10:29 PM EST
    The political effect is different how?  

    I think you concede the point in your last sentence.

    Besides, the distinction you make is not a distinction Silver made. He was discussing  the two bill approach.


    Only recently on NPR did I hear an (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 05:42:16 PM EST
    NPR person challenge GOP Senator on his saying reconciliation is a secretive nefarious process which should never be used. NPR person said weren't the Bus tax cuts arrived @ via reconciliation?  Why was it an acceptable process then but not now?

    Why has it taken so long for the media to question this misleading meme?

    Results (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by kidneystones on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 06:28:54 PM EST
    matter. Reconciliation is just a word.

    The bill as it stands appears to be immensely unpopular. Jamming through an unpopular bill in the teeth of Republican opposition makes sense only if the public perception can be changed.

    jbindc upthread hits the nail on the head. A neutral effect is a losing issue for Dems because jobs take precedence over 'reform'. Many critics from the left and right see the bill as a hand-out to big healthcare.

    I've no problem with any form of hardball in support of good ideas that will improve the lot of most Americans. This bill, however, is being openly sold as a fig-leaf to provide Dems with political cover.

    I expect voters aren't qullible enough to buy that line o' crap. BTD's observation about Rahm speaking out to signal the bill is dead is spot-on.

    Hah (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:24:40 PM EST
    there's nothing I like better than a good punch in the eye to the sactimonious Nate Silver.

    Thank BTD!!

    He's just a stats geek (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 05:10:16 PM EST
    It's hard to get mad at him, I would think....

    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 05:15:48 PM EST
    his writings on health care have been toxic and insulting.

    I don't get why people (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 06:19:06 PM EST
    would pay attention to his political views outside of his expertise of statistical analysis....

    Agreed (none / 0) (#68)
    by Salo on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 07:56:15 PM EST
    I hate the bastard.

    he's (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 05:15:44 PM EST
    one of the ones that was constantly apologizing for Obama and calling everybody racists who dared point out some of Obama's flaws. I once tried to discuss Obama's healthcare policy with him and he went into a literal frenzy and he hadnt even read the policy like I had.

    Facts are so (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 07:43:01 PM EST

    Pffft (none / 0) (#5)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:49:13 PM EST
    I remembered that last week ;) in this comment.  

    I guess in Silver's defense you could say "pass a reconciliation bill and the Senate bill at the same time" was not on the table then.  Still he did no good work at expanding the limits of the politically possible.  What makes reconciliation less crazy and less evil now?

    Oh, because it's necessary.  Well now that Scott Brown's in reconciliation might become a lot more necessary...as I ventured before, better, more progressive legislation might be passed without a Dem supermajority.

    I'll see that Pfft and raise you two Pffts (none / 0) (#51)
    by lambert on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 06:10:18 PM EST
    I love that "expanding the limits of the politically possible" turns out to mean using a chunk of arcane procedural machinery -- as opposed to, say, moving from a market-based solution to Medicare for All.

    Wouldn't that be something (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 07:55:22 PM EST
    It might just be possible.  

    Again, let's hope the jobs numbers tomorrow are in positive territory...


    Not quite fair (none / 0) (#8)
    by Manuel on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 01:54:37 PM EST
    Conditions have changed.  That statement was before the MA election.  The argument at that time was if a better bill was worth the cost of reconciliation.  Now the question is if getting a bill at all is worth the cost of reconciliation.  Reasonable people can answer those two questions differently.  The House may be lost already in any event.  If you are going down, you may as well get something done even if it is incremental.

    That specific example doesn't work well with the rest of Greenwald's piece.  Crazy and serious are not very useful terms when arguing the merits of an idea (e.g. John Nash and Game theory).  That doesn't mean one has to be "crazy" to have a good idea.

    I got a call from the DCCC recently asking for a contribution.  I told them I would wait and see what they did with HCR strongly suggesting that doing nothing was not an option.

    It is fair. (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 02:04:58 PM EST
    In fact, it is fair to criticize just about everyone who decided that it was a "smart" idea to criticize the mere notion of reconciliation - which is pretty much what the White House, Dem Leadership and numerous Obama faithful types decided to do for nearly a YEAR.  They are the people who set themselves up for a potential fall in having to resort to reconciliation.

    All they had to say in that year's time was: "We don't really want to use reconciliation, but if we have to go that route in order to make sure that we help the American people with this healthcare crisis, then it is not out of the realm of possibility."

    Instead, they spend a YEAR trashing the idea and insisting that it was "rare", "extreme", and practically as "evil" as mugging old ladies and killing puppies.  They reap what they sow.

    The worst part is that using a rare and extreme measure in the middle of a crisis that cannot be addressed any other way because the Republicans and ConservaDems are obstructing and undermining the efforts is actually OK.  But they haven't even really been smart enough to position themselves as the champions of the people's best interest.  That's probably because they are too obsessed with winning a legislative victory to notice that the HCR bill has real world implications for each and every American.  Rolling eyes.


    It is hard to argue with hyperbole (none / 0) (#16)
    by Manuel on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 02:25:39 PM EST
    Instead, they spend a YEAR trashing the idea and insisting that it was "rare", "extreme", and practically as "evil" as mugging old ladies and killing puppies.  They reap what they sow.

    I don't think you can find a post where Nate Silver ever did this or anything close to it.  

    Greenwald chose some bad examples to defend Grayson.  Both Hillary Clinton's AUMF vote and opposition to reconcialition for a better bill last December are defensible positions in the context of their time.


    Really? I couldn't find a post where (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 02:35:15 PM EST
    Nate Silver did this?  Did you not read his what he said as quoted in this very story?

    "Fallout" that would be "enormous" and "profound"... as in "lose the House"...

    I dunno who is engaged in more hyperbole - him or me - but you start threatening losing the House and to a political ear, you're talking mugging old ladies and killing tiny, baby puppies armageddon.


    Silver is a numbers guy (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Manuel on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 03:38:30 PM EST
    The way he was reading the numbers, reconciliation would lead to a significant drop in popularity for Democrats.  He did not think the benefit (a marginally better bill) outweighed the cost.

    Now the cost has been paid.  The Democrats have very little left to lose.  The cost/benefit equation is different.  It should not be surprising that based on new data and new conditions people would shift their position.

    You could say Silver was wrong in assuming that not using reconciliation at that time would not cost the Dems in popularity (as it probably has).  This is similar to questioning Hillary's AUMF vote in hindsight.

    What you can't say is that Silver ever claimed that reconciliation is "rare, extreme, and evil".  That is way different from "profound fallout" and "lose the house".

    It is possible to come to different conclusions than Nate Silver on reconciliation then and now.  It is logical to have backed reconciliation then (a better bill was worth it) and oppose it now (the current proposal doesn't go far enough).  I would not categorize anyone who felt this way as evil, inconsistent, or crazy.


    Ridiculous analogy, IMO. How many (none / 0) (#30)
    by observed on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 04:26:58 PM EST
    voters even know what reconciliation is?

    However many have been (none / 0) (#36)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 04:57:52 PM EST
    listening to the White House and the Democratic Leadership dis the procedure and however many learn from the GOP that it is "bad".  That's a toxic enough mix to create issues if the Democrats aren't smart enough to embrace the action and turn it into a badge of honor by really improving the bill and also making the case that they are doing "what it takes" to help the American people.  But they probably won't play it that smart.

    Not true (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 05:12:12 PM EST
    Silver was discussing a two bill approach just as is being discussed now.

    Your defenses are inaccurate and rather lame frankly.


    Sorry BTD (none / 0) (#71)
    by Manuel on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:41:24 PM EST
    Nate Silver's link has the time stamp below.  The Senate bill had not passed yet.  It did not pass until Christmas Eve.  The context in the entry is clearly the objections of the Senate bill killers who wanted a better bill passed through reconciliation.


    The Insidious Myth of Reconciliation
    by Nate Silver @ 2:27 PM


    So what? (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 07:22:09 AM EST
    He was arguing against a 2 bill approach.

    You must be kidding me. I have no idea why you are denying the obvious, but have at it.


    BTW (none / 0) (#72)
    by Manuel on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:55:55 PM EST
    the next post I can find from Silver on the topic is here.  In it Silver is clearly argouing for the Senate bill or the Senate bill with the reconciliation sidecar fix over starting over and using the reconciliation only strategy.  Again, he, like Hillary, may be wrong in his analysis but I would not chracterize his position as crazy or unprincipled.

    Silver lies in that post (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 07:25:04 AM EST
    that anyoen argued against a 2 bill strategy.

    The only person who ever argued against a3 bill strategy in Silver's debate with Jon walker was NATE SILVER.

    Silver is full of crap and why you deny the obvious on this is beyond me.


    To be clear (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 05:14:40 PM EST
    I questioned Hillary's AUMF vote AT THE TIME and I disagreed with Silver's analysis AT THE TIME.

    Now I think it is clear that Silver should explain how reconciliation is OK now but was not then.

    The explanation seems obvious to me.


    Perhaps reconciliation now okay (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 07:48:13 PM EST
    because it won't be used to pass any provision anathema to insurance/pharma interests.

    This is character assasinaion (none / 0) (#70)
    by Manuel on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 10:28:32 PM EST
    Please provide details that show Nate Silver is in the pockets of innsurance/pharma.

    When someone makes that accusation (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 07:26:06 AM EST
    then someone might have to substantiate it.

    You are off the rails.


    No other way now (none / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 05:26:37 PM EST
    Plus, the main bill already passed via supermajority in the Senate and the fix is the type of thing that makes sense via reconciliaiton....

    Sherrod Brown was on Maddow last night talking about even a separate bill apart from the health care fix-it bill...Not sure how that could be done with 51 votes.

    Maybe the thing to do is to start over as the Republicans want and just lower the eligibility for Medicare to 50.  That'd be a good start.  It is a funding bill, right, so 51 votes does the trick, no?

    If the numbers are good tomorrow on jobs, then maybe more can be done....


    Unemployment (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 08:07:40 AM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 02:35:55 PM EST
    Conditions continually change though (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by cawaltz on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 04:49:12 PM EST
    Surely, the Village Dems realize this.

    That's why you don't bad mouth a procedure or the people agitating for the use of it out the gate that you just might need to utilize it or them somewhere down the line.

    Sigh, our side needs BTD to teach madmen bargaining and the use of the Overton window to the Villagers before they wind up blowing any chance we have to even get incremental change.


    Heh (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 02:05:43 PM EST
    I never did pay much attention to Nate Silver (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 04:02:33 PM EST
    Just not my thang.

    If the republicans get into power again (none / 0) (#45)
    by Saul on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 05:51:33 PM EST
    will they use this process to undo Obama's health care billed if it passes using reconciliation.

    The democrats would be in no position to complain if they use it.

    They would try to do that anyway (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 06:04:27 PM EST
    So, nothing to lose by doing reconciliation now....