Skip to main content

View Diary: [UPDATED:] OH-01: John Boehner now proudly tweeting FDL/Jane Hamsher's polling (314 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Bush didn't think that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JVolvo

    When he did it.

    And what kind of point is that? Reconciliation "is a process"? Yeah, so is everything else.

    •  You couldn't do a public option through reconc. (13+ / 0-)

      Regardless, you're off topic. The issue is FDL going after Democrats who SUPPORTED THE PUBLIC OPTION.

      •  Commisioning and reporting polls is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nippersdad

        "Going after people".

        Do you post at FDL about how Kos 'went after' vulnerable Democrats like Dorgan just because the polls he commissioned showed the guy losing?

        Your insistance on hiding the truth, and the witch-hunts against those who refuse to play along, are disgusting.

        Why is Obama letting his prefect be the enemy of the good?

        by JesseCW on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 06:04:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It was a push poll - total bullshit. (0+ / 0-)

          The "choice" offered by capital is illusory. If you cannot afford the choice, you don't have the freedom to choose.

          by high bitrate on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 07:20:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  FDL commissioned SurveyUSA to do a poll, (0+ / 0-)

            they gave them guidelines as to what they wanted to know, they did not write it. If you think that SurveyUSA does pushpolling, you will need to argue the point with Nate Silver, who, I believe, is highly thought of in these parts.

            Just because you are enjoying your little glee clubs hategasm against FDL is no good reason to impugn the reputation of a perfectly good polling firm.

            A Republican is someone who can't enjoy his privileged position unless he is certain that somewhere, someone is in excruciating agony. I Love OCD

            by nippersdad on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 10:02:58 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Markos hasn't declared war on the Democrats (0+ / 0-)

          Jane has.  How you people don't get that distinction is beyond me.  Markos issues a poll to get us to care about a race and help Democrats out.  Jane does it to help Boehner become Speaker because she's pissed.

          •  How does pointing out who is pushing (0+ / 0-)

            a really shitty insurance reform bill by those who ran on universal health care reform add up to a war on the Democratic Party? Why you feel that the Democratic pols shouldn't have to live with their own decisions is really quite beyond me. If she is seeking to avoid the long term political ramifications of yet another NAFTA vote, you should be cheering her. I think she has the interests of the Democratic Party at heart, and sometimes that includes sitting Democrats down and telling them unpopular hard truths.

            A Republican is someone who can't enjoy his privileged position unless he is certain that somewhere, someone is in excruciating agony. I Love OCD

            by nippersdad on Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 10:07:37 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, and many of those (14+ / 0-)

      initiatives that Bush pushed through via reconciliation are due to expire and have to be renewed.  Those aren't permanent.

      You want HCR to be subject to the whims of Congress every few years? Even during repub administrations?

    •  You realize reconciliation is for budget only (14+ / 0-)

      and that what tries to get through is subject to a Bryd bath

      Remember, reconciliation was originally created to address fiscal policy -- not social policy. So every line in the bill must adhere to strict rules to ensure things stay within those boundaries. In short, if it's not about spending government money or taxing people, an opponent can raise an objection to have that section struck from the bill. (snip)

      The most well-known point of order is referred to as "the Byrd Rule." Named after its creator, West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, the rule generally allows sections of the bill to be struck if they do not have a direct impact on deficit reduction.

      Provisions can also be challenged where the impact on spending is "merely incidental."  (Simple question: Would a financially self-sustaining public option or co-op have a "merely incidental" impact on the deficit?)

      So popular is the Byrd Rule that it has its own lexicon. If someone thinks he/she can strike a section of the bill, that section is considered "Byrdable." Once it is struck from the bill, it's called a "Byrd Dropping." A bill that has been riddled by the Byrd Rule has gone through a "Byrd Bath."

      Also it is not really a 51 vote dance

      When a senator challenges a section of the bill if the parliamentarian sustains the objection the section is removed unless they have 60 votes to override the decision.

      The 51 votes is only to pass the final bill, but since most of the bill could be rightly challenged as not being directly budget related very little of it could get through for a final vote.
      We couldn't get through the public option or any of the new rules like about preexisting conditions or caps on expenses or 100% coverage for preventive procedures and well baby care and so on.

      We probably could get through Medicare buy in for people over a certain age but if they want to do that they should get the whole of the plan through first...

      Anyway it's nice to say we can because bush did. Bush did on taxes. Taxes is budget. Health care policies or insurance regulations or the exchange or public option are not.

    •  Our goal is to not have another president (0+ / 0-)

      like Dubya.  That's the whole point of replacing that nightmare.

    •  Let's see. Bush could have done (0+ / 0-)

      it to privatize Social security. But he didn't? Guess why. It would have been political suicide. Learn something!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site