Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It can't be any more partisan than the bill they are attempting to repeal, can it?
Well, you whined about that so let's hear you whine about how "partisan" this bill is and how it was "rammed through" the House without being allowed through the amendment process, etc.
It was written and voted on. And passed. I'm not sure what other magic you think should have happened along the way. Now if the GOP tries to change the bill a couple times and then loses votes in the Senate and then attempts to declare the last changed version to be purely budgetary so it can move directly past the final vote and into reconciliation *then* you might have a point. So far, the GOP has done this cleanly though.
Quote:
Quote:
The other component to this is that the health care bill is *very* unpopular nationwide. I know we get caught up in hyperbole here, and while it's wrong to say that "everyone" wants it repealed, it's more right than saying that "no one" does.
That's not accurate. Repeal is running about even with not repealing right now.
Sure. And given that we can assume that those wanting repeal are a subset of those who don't like the health care bill, my statement still kinda stands, doesn't it? A bill has to be incredibly unpopular for the people to actually support repealing it in such numbers. Even you have to acknowledge that.
Quote:
Quote:
If it was such a simple deal Reid would call for a vote on the bill and the Dems would vote against it. But instead he's refusing to put it on the schedule.
What he should do is put it on the schedule and then filibuster it. Because
that's how you handle legislation you're afraid to vote on, AMIRITE?
We're using different meanings of the word "afraid". The GOP filibustered the health care bill because they knew they didn't have the votes to prevent it from passing. You could say they were "afraid" of the vote because of its likely outcome. That's entirely different from being
afraid to vote because you don't want to be on record voting for something the people don't agree with. Those are kinda dramatically different things, and it's telling how frequently it's the Dems who don't want their positions to be on record.
Additionally, as I pointed out, the degree to which a filibuster helps or hurts you depends on the public opinion of the thing being filibustered. Of course, the other obvious point here is that the Dems have a majority in the Senate, so if they put it on the schedule and then filibuster it, as the majority party, they'll look *really* silly. But I wouldn't put it past them, I suppose.
Let's bottom line this. The Dems have the numbers in the Senate to defeat the bill. If public opinion truly isn't a factor, why not just vote against it and stand by their position? The only reason *not* to do this is if you don't want to stand by your position but want to avoid having to take one in the first place. The GOP has taken a stance. Why are the Dems afraid to do so as well?
Edited, Jan 25th 2011 2:04pm by gbaji